ORIGINAL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEO14CIJERK'S OFFICE
NEWNAN DIVISION u .s.D.c. Newnan

SEP 3 0 2005

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ~ LUTHER D

. T

erk

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSI.ON, epBu yt : y Clerk

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION N

V.

COMPLAINT

GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL d/b/a

SKYLIGHTS INTERNATIONAL, INC .,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

and GAMMANS ARCHITECTU

~ ~y

o5~ - 9 I.JV

"~1 e

PRODUCTS, INC .,

Defendants .

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Title VII") to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race, and to provide appropriate relief to Mr . James Hall and Mr . Gary Richardson, who were adversely affected by such practices . As expressed in greater detail below, Mr . Hall and Mr . Richardson were employed by Defendants at their Newnan, Georgia facility . Mr. Hall held the position of saw operator and Mr . Richardson held the position of saw helper .

Mr. Hall and Mr . Richardson were the most tenured and experienced individuals in their respective positions . Nonetheless, Defendants laid off both Mr . Hall and Mr. Richardson, purportedly, due to lack of work, and retained less tenured and experienced non-black employees . Shortly after laying off Mr . Hall and Mr . Richardson, Defendants hired less qualified non-black employees, or assigned less qualified incumbent employees, to perform the job duties and responsibilities previously performed by Mr . Hall and Mr . Richardson, in violation of Title VII .
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 . The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Newnan Division .
PARTIES 3 . Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the
2

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, 28 U .S .C . § 2000e-5(f){1} and (3) .
4 . At all relevant times, Defendants Gammans Architectural dlb/a Skylights International, Inc ., and Gammans Architectural Products, Inc ., ("Defendants") have continuously been corporations doing business in the State of Georgia and the City of Newnan, and, as an integrated enterprise operating as a single employer, have continuously had at least I S employees .
5 . At all relevant times, Defendant Gammans Architectural dlb/a Skylights International, Inc ., has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U .S .C . § 2000e(b) (g) and (h) .
6 . At all relevant times, Defendant Gammans Architectural Products, Inc ., has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U .S .C . § 2000e(b) (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7 . More than 30 days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Mr . Hall and Mr. Richardson filed their charges with the Commission alleging violations of
3

Title VII by Defendants . All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
8 . Since at least July 2003, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Newnan, Georgia facilities in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S .C . § § 2000e-3(a), by laying off Mr . Hall and Mr . Ri chardson.
9 . The effects of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above have been to deprive Mr. Hall and Mr . Richardson of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race .
10 . The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional .
11 . The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were carried out with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr . Hall and Mr . Richardson .
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court : A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns and all other persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in employment practices which discriminate on the basis of
4

race . B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and
programs which provide equal employment opportunities for black employees, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices .
C. Order Defendants to make whole Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson, who were adversely affected by Defendants' discriminatory conduct, by providing each appropriate back pay with prejudgement 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 of Mr . Hall and Mr . Richardson .
D . Order Defendants to make whole Mr . Hall and Mr . Richardson by providing each compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above in amounts to be determined at trial .
E. Order Defendants to make whole Mr . Hall and Mr. Richardson by providing each compensation for non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, anxiety, stress, depression, and

humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial . F . Order Defendants to pay to Mr. Hall and Mr . Richardson punitive
damages for Defendants' malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial .
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper . H. 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,
S . Rbberf Royal Regional Attorney Georgia Bar No . 617505 U .S . Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Atlanta District Office 100 Alabama St ., SW, Suite 4R30 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Telephone : (404) 562-6812 Facsimile : (404) 562-6905
6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
NEWNAN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 3:05-CV-097-JTC

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the court is the District Court order [Doc. 4] entered December 7, 2005, directing Defendants, corporate entities, to retain counsel and to notify the court of the name and address of counsel within twenty (20) days in accordance with Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); Nat’l Indep. Theatre Exhibitors, Inc. v. Buena Vista Distrib. Co., 748 F.2d 602, 609 (11th Cir. 1985). Defendants were advised that failure to comply with the order would result in the answers to complaint, which were filed pro se, being stricken and a default being entered against Defendants. [Doc. 4]. Defendants failed to comply with the order.

AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

Discussion In accordance with the District Court order, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED
to strike the answers to the complaint, Docs. 2 and 3. Rule 55(a) provides that “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party’s default.” As of this date, Defendants have failed to plead or defend this law suit.
Further, as noted, Defendants are not represented by counsel in this action. “The rule is well established that a corporation is an artificial entity that can act only through agents, cannot appear pro se, and must be represented by counsel.” Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corporation, 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Rowland, 506 U.S. at 194-95); Nat’l Satellite Sports, Inc. v. No Frills Restaurant, Inc., 15 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1361 n. 1 (S.D. Fla. 1998). Therefore, Defendants cannot proceed pro se and lack legal representation to defend against the claims brought by Plaintiff. At this time, Defendants simply cannot defend this action. Because Defendants failed to comply with the District Court’s order and have failed to otherwise defend this action, entry of a default is appropriate.
2
AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

Conclusion For these reasons, the court RECOMMENDS that a default be entered against
Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). After entry of the default, Plaintiff may seek a default judgment. See Heaton v. Bonacker & Leigh, 173 F.R.D. 533, 534 (M.D. Ala. 1997). In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), within twenty (20) days of entry of the default, Plaintiff may apply to the Clerk of Court for the entry of a default judgment.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate this reference. SO ORDERED this 6th day of January, 2006.
3
AO 72A (Rev.8/82)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v.
GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL d/b/a Skylights International, Inc., and GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-097-CC

O R D E R This matter is currently before the Court on the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation [#5]. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants Gammans Architectural and Gammans Architectural Products, Inc. (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”) alleging unlawful employment practices on the basis of race in violation of Title VII. The respective Defendants answered, albeit without aid of counsel. Because corporations may not proceed pro se in federal court, however, see, e.g., Nat’l Indep. Theatre Exhibitors, Inc. v. Buena Vista Distrib. Co., 748 F.2d 602, 609 (11th Cir 1985), the Court ordered Defendants to

retain counsel licensed to practice in this district and to notify the Court of the same within twenty days. The Court specifically advised Defendants that failure to do so “may result in the Court striking the respective Defendant’s Answer and default being entered against such Defendant.” (Order at 2, Dec. 7, 2005.)
As the record reflects, Defendants did not heed the Court’s instruction. Accordingly, on January 6, 2006, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation in which she directed that the Clerk of Court strike the Answers to the Complaint and further recommended the following: (i) that default be entered against both Defendants; and (ii) that Plaintiff be given twenty (20) days to apply to the Clerk for entry of default judgment. On January 17, 2006, Nelson J. Gammans, the president of the corporate entity Defendants, responded to the Report and Recommendation and requested that he be allowed to represent the corporations pro se because the corporations purportedly cannot afford legal counsel. Mr. Gammans also gratuitously made substantive arguments about the case. On January 23, 2006, the EEOC filed a brief in opposition to the Defendants’ response to the Report and Recommendation . T h e EEOC requested that Mr. Gammans’ letter communication to the Court, which Mr. Gammans apparently submitted ex parte, be disregarded, that Defendants’ Answers be stricken, and that the Court order the entry of default against the Defendants.
2

On January 27, 2006, without awaiting a ruling from this Court on the Report and Recommendation, the EEOC filed a Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgement. Based upon the affidavit of the EEOC’s counsel, which was attached to the motion and showed that Defendants’ Answers had been stricken and that Defendants otherwise had failed to defend, the Clerk entered default against the Defendants on January 30, 2006. The portion of the EEOC’s motion seeking a default judgement remains pending.
Given the filings and events succeeding the Magistrate’s issuance of the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate’s recommendations have now become moot. That is, the Clerk of Court has already entered default against both Defendants, and the EEOC had already moved the Court for a default judgement. For the purpose of clarifying this Court’s position on the Report and Recommendation, however, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation is due to be adopted in part and rejected in part. Insofar as Defendants were due to have default entered against them, the Court adopts that portion of the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation recommending that such action be taken. However, because it does not appear from the Complaint that the damages sought are “for a sum certain or for a sum which can by
3

computation be made certain . . . , ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1),1 the Magistrate erred in recommending that Plaintiff be given twenty (20) days to apply to the Clerk for entry of default judgment. The Magistrate should have recommended that Plaintiff be given this time to apply to the Court for entry of default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), as Plaintiff has now done. Therefore, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part.
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of February, 2006.
s/ CLARENCE COOPER CLARENCE COOPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
The EEOC’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgement confirms that the damages being sought by the EEOC are not “for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1). Indeed, the motion indicates that in addition to injunctive relief and easily-calculable monetary damages such as back pay, the EEOC is seeking an unspecified amount of damages for the aggrieved workers for “emotional pain and suffering, anxiety, depression, loss of selfesteem, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience, stress and humiliation.” (See Pl.’s Mot. for Entry of Default and Default J. at 4.)
4

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

:

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff, :

:

vs.

:

:

GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL

:

d/b/a Skylights International, Inc., :

:

and

:

:

GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL

:

PRODUCTS, INC.,

:

:

Defendants. :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-0097-CC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

[Doc. No. 8].

I. BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2005, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“Plaintiff” or the “EEOC”) commenced the above-styled action against Defendants

Gammans Architectural, d/b/a Skylights International, Inc. and Gammans

Architectural Products, Inc. (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”). The

EEOC brought the action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

to correct alleged unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and to provide

relief to Mr. James Hall and Mr. Gary Richardson, who allegedly were adversely

affected by Defendants’ practices.

On December 6, 2005, Nelson T. Gammans, the president of Defendant

Gammans Architectural Products, Inc., filed an Answer on the corporation’s behalf.

Also on December 6, 2005, Debra A. Gammans, the president of Defendant

Gammans Architectural d/b/a Skylights International, Inc., filed an Answer on that entity’s behalf. Because corporations may not appear pro se in federal court proceedings and must be represented by an attorney, however, and Defendants did not retain counsel as directed by the Court in an Order entered on December 7, 2005, both filings were stricken from the record of the case. In addition, due to Defendants’ failure to plead or otherwise defend the lawsuit, default was entered against Defendants effective January 27, 2006. Plaintiff now moves for entry of default judgment. II. STANDARD
When a plaintiff’s claim is not for a sum certain or cannot be made certain by computation, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) authorizes the court to grant a default judgment against a party who has failed to answer or otherwise defend against a complaint following the clerk’s entry of default. Rule 55(b)(2) also provides, in pertinent part, the following:
If, in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper.... Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); see also Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Philpot, 317 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2003) (“following entry of a default judgment, a district court may conduct an evidentiary hearing ‘to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence....’”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2))). A default judgment should be entered only when the factual allegations in the complaint, which are deemed admitted by reason of default, provide a sufficient legal basis to justify entry of a default judgment. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Williams, 699 F. Supp. 897, 898-99 (N.D. Ga. 1988). Thus, when ruling on a motion for default judgment, the court must investigate the legal sufficiency of the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s complaint. Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). “The defendant is not held to admit facts
- 2 -

that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.” Id. III. DISCUSSION
A. Liability Plaintiff’s Complaint brings a Title VII claim against Defendants and alleges that Defendants wrongfully terminated Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson based on their race. Plaintiff’s claim is based on the following facts. Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson were employed by Defendants at their facility in Newnan, Georgia. Mr. Hall was employed as a saw operator, and Mr. Richardson was employed as a saw helper. Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson were the most tenured and experienced individuals in their respective positions. Nevertheless, purportedly due to lack of work, Defendants laid off both Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson, but Defendants retained less tenured and experienced non-black employees. Shortly after Defendants laid off Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson, Defendants hired less qualified non-black employees or assigned less qualified incumbent employees to perform the job duties and responsibilities previously performed by Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson. The allegations in the Complaint, taken as true, establish Defendants’ liability under Title VII. The Court finds that, since at least July 2003, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at their facilities in Newnan, Georgia, in violation of Title VII by laying off Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson. The Court further finds that the effects of Defendants’ practices have been to deprive Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race. Based on these findings, which are supported by the factual allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its Title VII claim. Plaintiff has also alleged in the Complaint that Defendants’ unlawful employment practices were intentional and that Defendants carried out the unlawful employment practices with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson, but these allegations are
- 3 -

not supported by specific facts. Therefore, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), Plaintiff shall put on evidence at a hearing to establish the truth of these allegations.
B. Damages In addition to seeking injunctive relief, which this Court will award, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to provide Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices. Plaintiff also requests that the Court order Defendants to provide Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from Defendants’ unlawful employment practices. Plaintiff further requests that the Court order Defendants ro provide Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson compensation for non-pecuniary losses resulting from Defendants’ unlawful employment practices, including emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, anxiety, stress, depression, and humiliation. Finally, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to pay Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson punitive damages for Defendants’ malicious and reckless conduct. As the damages sought by Plaintiff are not “for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1), Plaintiff shall put on evidence at the above-mentioned hearing regarding the damages due Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [Doc. No. 8] to the extent set forth herein and hereby ORDERS the following: 1. Defendants, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, are permanently enjoined from engaging in discrimination and any other employment practice that discriminates on the basis
- 4 -

of race; 2. Defendants are to institute and carry out policies, practices, and
programs that provide equal employment opportunities for Black individuals and that eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
3. Defendants are to make whole Gary Richardson and James Hall by providing back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, reinstatement of Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson without loss of seniority;
4. Defendants are to make whole Gary Richardson and James Hall by providing compensation, in an amount to be determined, for any past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices; and
5. Defendants are to make whole Gary Richardson and James Hall by providing each compensation, in an amount to be determined, for any nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices, including emotional pain and suffering, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience, stress, and humiliation.
The Court further ORDERS that this matter be REFERRED back to Magistrate Judge Janet F. King for an evidentiary hearing to be held on the issue of whether Defendants’ unlawful employment practices were intentional and carried out with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson and on the issue of damages, including without limitation any punitive damages, due Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hall. A final judgment shall issue following the undersigned’s consideration of Magistrate Judge King’s Report and Recommendation and any objections thereto.
(SIGNATURE ON FOLLOWING PAGE) - 5 -

SO ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2006. s/ CLARENCE COOPER CLARENCE COOPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 6 -

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
NEWNAN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL d/b/a Skylights International, Inc., and GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 3:05-CV-097-JTC

ORDER FOR SERVICE OF FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Attached is the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge made in this action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and this Court's Local Rules LR 73 and LCrR 58.1. Let the same be filed and a copy, together with a copy of this Order, be served upon counsel for the parties.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party may file written objections, if any, to the report and recommendation within ten (10) days of the receipt of this Order. Should objections be filed, they shall specify with particularity the alleged error or
AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

errors made (including reference by page number to the transcript if applicable) and shall be served upon the opposing party. The party filing objections will be responsible for obtaining and filing the transcript of any evidentiary hearing for review by the district court. If no objections are filed, the report and recommendation may be adopted as the opinion and order of the district court and any appellate review of the factual findings will be limited to a plain error review. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050, 104 S. Ct. 729, 79 L. Ed. 2d 189 (1984).
The clerk is directed to submit the report and recommendation with objections, if any, to the district court after expiration of the above time period.
SO ORDERED, this 20th day of July, 2006.
2
AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
NEWNAN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL d/b/a Skylights International, Inc., and GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 3:05-CV-097-CC

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought the above-styled action [Doc. 1] on September 30, 2005, against Defendants Gammans Architectural, d/b/a Skylights International, Inc., and Gammans Architectural Products, Inc. Plaintiff EEOC alleged that Defendants terminated the employment of James Hall and Gary Richardson on the basis of race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. On April 28, 2006, District Judge Clarence Cooper issued an order [Doc. 12] granting Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. 8] for default judgment and referring the case back to
AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

the undersigned. Pursuant to Judge Cooper’s order, the undersigned held an evidentiary hearing1 on June 26, 2006, in order to address the issues of damages and whether Defendants’ unlawful employment practices were intentional and carried out with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson. I. Facts
The evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing established the following facts. Defendants Gammans Architectural, d/b/a Skylights International, Inc., and Gammans Architectural Products, Inc. (“Defendants” or “Gammans”) operate a business facility in Newnan, Georgia. [Tr. at 4-5]. The Newnan facility consists of an office area and a shop area. [Tr. at 5]. Within the shop area, there are three (3) departments: shipping, fabrication/assembly, and welding. [Tr. at 6, 32, 35]. During the relevant period of time, Gary Richardson and James Hall, both of whom are black, worked for Gammans in the fabrication department within the shop area. [Tr. at 3, 6, 32,35]. Mr. Hall worked as a large saw operator, and Mr. Richardson worked as a saw helper. [Tr. at 6, 31]. Mr. Richardson began working for Gammans in 1999, while Mr. Hall worked

AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

1Citations to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing are: [Tr. at ]. 4

AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

for the company from approximately 1985 to 1988 and then returned in 1992. [Tr. at 5, 29-30].
On July 29, 2003, Gammans laid off Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hall. [Tr. at 7-8, 33]. Decision-makers at Gammans stated that the employees were terminated because of a lack of work. [Tr. at 9, 16-17, 39; Plaintiff’s Exhibit (“Pla. Ex.”) 1, 3]. At the time that they were laid off, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hall were the most tenured and experienced employees in their respective positions. [Tr. at 21-22, 32-34]. Mr. Richardson earned $9.00 per hour, and Mr. Hall earned $12.00 per hour. [Tr. at 5, 3940; Pla. Ex. 4]. All of the less experienced and less tenured employees retained or hired by Gammans to perform the work that had been performed by Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hall were white. [Tr. at 21-22, 41-42].
Mr. Richardson received unemployment compensation for twenty-two (22) weeks after his termination. [Tr. at 9]. He applied for positions with many different employers in the Newnan area, including restaurants, automobile dealerships, and construction companies. [Tr. at 9-16]. Mr. Richardson testified that he was able to obtain a little work with a former employer who ran a construction company, but for the most part, he has not been able to find any employment. Eventually, Mr. Richardson began performing odd jobs for neighbors, such as cutting grass, cleaning
5

AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

gutters, spraying houses for insects, and doing general work as a handy man. [Tr. at 13-15]. He earned approximately $500 per month from the beginning of 2004 until the present. [Tr. at 14].
At the time he was laid off, Mr. Richardson’s two (2) children were five (5) years old and four (4) months old. [Tr. at 22]. He and his wife were forced to rely solely on her income to support their family; they began arguing about money; and their family was not able to do many of the things that they had enjoyed before his layoff. [Tr. at 22-24]. Mr. Richardson testified that the loss of his job from Gammans caused him to experience severe anxiety, stress, depression, and humiliation. He did not seek any psychological counseling, however, because he could not afford it. [Tr. at 22-24].
Mr. Hall received unemployment compensation for twenty-two (22) weeks after his termination. [Tr. at 36]. He applied for positions with many different employers in the Newnan area, including numerous construction companies and stores. [Tr. at 3739]. Eventually in 2004, he obtained a position at Photo Circuit through a temporary agency. Mr. Hall worked at Photo Circuit for nine (9) months making $7.50 per hour. [Tr. at 38]. His employment ended when the company went out of business. [Tr. at 38-39]. Mr. Hall then found employment with Beck Building Cleaning as a floor technician. [Tr. at 39]. He worked at Beck for eleven (11) months, making $8.50 per
6

AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

hour for the first three (3) months on the job and $9.50 per hour during his last eight (8) months. [Tr. at 39]. Mr. Hall is currently looking for work again. [Tr. at 39].
Mr. Hall testified that after he was laid off, he had to sell his car in order to continue making payments on his apartment. [Tr. at 42]. He was eventually unable to pay his rent and was evicted. [Tr. at 42]. He then moved in with his sister. Due to difficulty paying his bills and his credit card debt, Mr. Hall’s credit rating dropped significantly. [Tr. at 42]. He testified that the loss of his job from Gammans caused him to experience severe anxiety, stress, depression, and humiliation. [Tr. at 34-38, 4143]. In addition, Mr. Hall was unable to afford his medication. [Tr. at 38]. II. Discussion
A Title VII claimant is presumptively entitled to back pay, including benefits, but he has a duty to mitigate damages. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 417-23, 95 S. Ct. 2362, 2371-74, 45 L. Ed. 2d 280 (1975). Title VII provides that “[i]nterim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person or persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allowable.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1). “This is appropriate because the purpose of Title VII is to ‘make whole’ a victim of discrimination, not to provide a windfall.” Sowers v. Kemira, Inc., 701 F. Supp. 809, 826 (S.D. Ga. 1988). The Supreme Court
7

has stated that a Title VII claimant must “use reasonable diligence in finding other suitable employment. Although the unemployed or underemployed claimant need not go into another line of work, accept a demotion, or take a demeaning position, he forfeits his right to back pay if he refuses a job substantially equivalent to the one he was denied.” Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219, 231-32, 102 S. Ct. 3057, 306566, 73 L. Ed. 2d 721 (1982). Similarly, when a discharged Title VII claimant finds “suitable employment” but then quits without a justifiable reason, “the amount he would have earned had he not quit” should be excluded from back pay. NLRB v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 360 F.2d 569, 575 (5th Cir. 1966);2 Reiner v. Family Ford, Inc., 146 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1286 (M.D. Fla. 2001).
In the present case, the court finds that both Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hall used more than reasonable diligence in trying to obtain suitable employment. They both applied for positions with many different employers, and they took diligent steps to earn at least some income. As noted supra, a claimant “forfeits his right to back pay if he refuses a job substantially equivalent to the one he was denied.” Ford Motor Co.,

AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

2Although this case involved the National Labor Relations Act and not Title VII, the Supreme Court has stated that Title VII’s “back pay provision was expressly modeled on the back pay provision of the National Labor Relations Act.” Moody, 422 U.S. at 419, 95 S. Ct. at 2372.
8

AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

458 U.S. at 232, 102 S. Ct. at 3066. In the present case, there is no evidence that either Mr. Richardson or Mr. Hall ever refused any job, much less a substantially equivalent job. They are both entitled to back pay, which is “the difference between the actual wages earned and the wages the individual would have earned in the position that, but for the discrimination, the individual would have attained.” Akouri v. State of Florida Dep’t of Trans., 408 F.3d 1338, 1343 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Gunby v. Pennsylvania Electric Co., 840 F.2d 1108, 1119-20 (3rd Cir. 1988)). Plaintiff EEOC has correctly noted that the Eleventh Circuit does not take into consideration unemployment compensation when calculating back pay. Brown v. A.J. Gerrard Mfg. Co., 695 F.2d 1290, 1292-93 (11th Cir. 1983).
Rosalynn Williams, a senior investigator with the EEOC, testified at the evidentiary hearing on the issue of the calculation of back pay for both Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hall. [Tr. at 46-58]. Ms. Williams testified that the EEOC uses a software program called PayCalc, which is verified for its accuracy, to determine the amount of back pay, including interest, that should be awarded to complainants. [Tr. at 49-50]. Ms. Williams also stated that she has used PayCalc to calculate back pay on more than eighty (80) occasions in her position as a senior investigator. [Tr. at 49]. Ms. Williams created two (2) PayCalc spreadsheets which detail the amount of back pay owed to
9

AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hall. [Tr. at 50-59, 65; Pla. Exs. 7, 8]. Mr. Richardson’s total back pay is $42,484.18, and Mr. Hall’s total back pay is $50,124.15. [Tr. at 5059, 65; Pla. Exs. 7, 8]. These spreadsheets have been submitted to the court, and the undersigned finds that they accurately reflect the difference between the complaints’ actual income earned and the income they would have earned if they had remained in their positions at Gammans, plus interest.
The court also considered the issue of reinstatement as directed by the district court. Testimony from Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hall at the evidentiary hearing indicated that neither was seeking reinstatement. Plaintiff EEOC did not request reinstatement at Gammans as an element of relief. [Tr. at 62-63]. According, the court does not recommend that reinstatement be included in the recovery awarded in this case.
Forty-two U.S.C. § 1981a provides that “the complaining party may recover compensatory and punitive damages” in Title VII cases. “Compensatory damages” as used in § 1981a does not include back pay or interest on back pay. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(2). The statute sets a limit on the amount of compensatory and punitive damages that a complainant may recover. The portion of the statute relevant to the present case reads as follows:
10

The sum of the amount of compensatory damages awarded under this section for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses, and the amount of punitive damages awarded under this section, shall not exceed, for each complaining party– (A) in the case of a respondent who has more than 14 and fewer than 101 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $50,000. . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). Plaintiff EEOC seeks nonpecuniary, compensatory damages in an amount of
$35,000 for Mr. Hall and $35,000 for Mr. Richardson. Claimants who have received
substantial awards for emotional distress and other intangible injuries usually “were
either the victims of invidious discrimination, suffered serious–often
permanent–physical injuries, or were discharged and had difficulty finding alternative employment.” Hetzel v. County of Prince William, 89 F.3d 169, 172 (4th Cir. 1996)
(emphasis added). In the present case, both Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hall have
established that they have experienced significant difficulty in finding alternative
employment after their employment with Gammans was terminated. Their testimony
also shows that they have suffered from “emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,
mental anguish, [and] loss of enjoyment of life.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3).
11
AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

Mr. Richardson testified that he and his wife were forced to rely solely on her income to support themselves and their two (2) young children and that they began arguing about money after the termination. In addition, their family was not able to do many of the things that they had enjoyed before his layoff. [Tr. at 22-24]. He testified that the loss of his job from Gammans caused him to experience severe anxiety, stress, depression, and humiliation, and Defendants have offered no evidence to the contrary. [Tr. at 22-24].
Mr. Hall testified that after he was laid off, he had to sell his car in order to continue making payments on his apartment. [Tr. at 42]. He was eventually unable to pay his rent and was evicted, and he was forced to move in with his sister. Because of his difficulty paying his bills, Mr. Hall’s credit rating dropped significantly. [Tr. at 42]. In addition, Mr. Hall was unable to afford his medication. [Tr. at 38]. He testified that the loss of his job from Gammans caused him to experience severe anxiety, stress, depression, and humiliation, and Defendants have offered no evidence to the contrary. [Tr. at 34-38, 41-43].
As Plaintiff EEOC has noted, numerous courts in similar cases have upheld awards for compensatory damages that are far greater than the amounts sought here. See Smith v. Norwest Financial Acceptance, Inc., 129 F.3d 1408, 1416-17 (10th Cir.
12

AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

1997) (upholding $200,000 award based, in part, on evidence that plaintiff suffered from symptoms such as humiliation, degradation, loss of self-respect, sleeplessness, and stress in family relationships); Hogan v. Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Co., 61 F.3d 1034, 1037-38 (1st Cir. 1995) (upholding $200,000 award based on evidence that plaintiff’s family was under financial distress, and plaintiff “became depressed, withdrawn, and gave up his usual activities”); Rau v. Apple-Rio Management Co., Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1348-49 (N.D. Ga. 1999) (not reducing jury award of $92,000 for “injuries such as emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and other nonpecuniary losses”). “A district court has ‘broad, equitable discretion to grant any equitable relief it deems appropriate to make persons whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful discrimination.’” Hicks v. Dothan City Board of Education, 814 F. Supp. 1044 (M.D. Ala. 1993). In light of the facts of this case, the court finds that the amounts requested by Plaintiff EEOC to compensate Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hall for their nonpecuniary losses are appropriate.
Forty two U.S.C. § 1981(a)(1) provides that a “complaining party may recover punitive damages . . . if the complaining party demonstrates that the respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual.” At
13

the evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff EEOC did not introduce evidence that Defendants acted with malice or with reckless indifference to the rights of Mr. Richardson or Mr. Hall. Plaintiff also gave no indication that it was seeking any award of punitive damages in this case. [Tr. at 62-63]. Given these facts, the undersigned concludes that punitive damages are not warranted. III. Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons and cited authority, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Mr. Richardson recover from Defendants the sum of $77,484.18, which represents back pay in the amount of $42,484.18 and compensatory damages in the amount of $35,000. The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that Mr. Hall recover from Defendants the sum of $85,124.15, which represents back pay in the amount of $50,124.15 and compensatory damages in the amount of $35,000.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate this reference. SO RECOMMENDED, this 20th day of July, 2006.
14
AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
NEWNAN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

:

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff, :

:

vs.

:

:

GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL

:

d/b/a Skylights International, Inc., :

:

and

:

:

GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL

:

PRODUCTS, INC.,

:

:

Defendants. :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-0097-CC

ORDER On May 1, 2006, this Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants Gammans Architectural d/b/a Skylights International, Inc. and

Gammans Architectural Products, Inc. (“Defendants”) and referring the matter back

to Magistrate Judge Janet F. King for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Defendants’ unlawful employment practices were intentional and carried out with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Gary

Richardson and Mr. James Hall and on the issue of damages, including without limitation any punitive damages, due Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hall.1 Magistrate Judge King held said evidentiary hearing on June 26, 2006, and issued a Final Report and Recommendation on July 20, 2006. In the Final Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge King recommends that Mr. Richardson recover from Defendants

the sum of $77,484.18, representing back pay in the amount of $42,484.18 and

1

Although entered on May 1, 2006, the Court ‘s Order is dated April 28, 2006.

compensatory damages in the amount of $35,000.00. Magistrate Judge King further recommends that Mr. Hall recover from Defendants the sum of $85,124.15, which represents back pay in the amount of $50,124.15 and compensatory damages in the amount of $35,000.00.
The record reflects that no objections have been filed to the Magistrate’s Final Report and Recommendation. After careful review, the Court finds that the Magistrate’s Report is correct both in fact and in law. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate’s Final Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the Judgment of this Court. The Court DIRECTS that judgment be entered in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Defendants Gammans Architectural d/b/a Skylights International, Inc. and Gammans Architectural Products, Inc. as follows: awarding Gary Richardson $77,484.18, awarding James Hall $ 85,124.15, and granting the injunctive relief fully set forth in this Court’s Order entered on May 1, 2006.2
SO ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2006.
s/ CLARENCE COOPER CLARENCE COOPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

While the Court previously stated in its Order of May 1, 2006, that Mr. Hall

and Mr. Richardson were entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority, the Final

Report and Recommendation specifies that testimony from Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hall

at the evidentiary hearing indicated that neither was seeking reinstatement and Plaintiff

EEOC did not request reinstatement at Gammans as an element of relief. Therefore,

reinstatement shall not be included in the recovery awarded.

- 2 -

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
NEWNAN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL d/b/a Skylights International, Inc. and GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 3:05-cv-97-JTC

DEFAULT JUDGMENT
The defendants GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL d/b/a Skylights International, Inc. and GAMMANS ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS, INC., having failed to plead or otherwise to defend in this action and default having been duly entered, and the Court, Clarence Cooper, United States District Judge, by order of October 26, 2006, having directed that judgment issue in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, are permanently enjoined from engaging in discrimination and any other employment practice that discriminates on the basis of race; Defendants are to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for Black individuals and that eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Gary Richardson recover from the defendants the sum of $77,484.18 and that James Hall recover from the defendants the sum of $85,124.15.
Dated at Newnan, Georgia this 26th day of October, 2006.

Prepared, filed, and entered in the Clerk's Office October 26, 2006 James N. Hatten Clerk of Court

JAMES N. HATTEN CLERK OF COURT
By: s/Sherry Gibbons Sherry Gibbons Deputy Clerk

By: s/Sherry Gibbons Sherry Gibbons Deputy Clerk

 
 CM/ECF LIVE v3 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?336051734541616-L_3...

U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia (Newnan) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05-cv-00097-CC

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Gammans Architectural et al Assigned to: Judge Clarence Cooper Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 09/30/2005 Date Terminated: 10/26/2006 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by S. Robert Royal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Atlanta District Office-Legal Unit 100 Alabama Street, S.W. 4R30 Atlanta Federal Center Atlanta, GA 30303-8704 404-562-6820 Email: stan.royal@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pamela A Alfred-George U.S. Equal Employment Oppprtunity Commission 100 Alabama Street S.W. Suite 4R30 Atlanta, GA 30303 404-562-6217 Email: pamela.alfred-george@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Gammans Architectural doing business as Skylights International, Inc.
Defendant

represented by Gammans Architectural Debra A. Gammans, President Skylights International, Inc. 160 Beavers Street Newnan, GA 30263 PRO SE

1 of 5

5/9/2007 4:18 PM

CM/ECF LIVE v3 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?336051734541616-L_3...

Gammans Architectural Products, Inc.

represented by Gammans Architectural Products, Inc. Nelson J. Gammans, President Gammans Architectural Products, Inc. 1 Beavers Street Newnan, GA 30263 770-254-1094 PRO SE

Date Filed 09/30/2005
12/06/2005
12/06/2005
12/07/2005 12/28/2005 01/06/2006 01/06/2006
01/17/2006 01/23/2006

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed. Consent form to proceed before U.S. Magistrate and pretrial instructions given to attorney, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(scg) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 10/03/2005)
2 DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER 5 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Gammans Architectural Products, Inc.; Discovery ends on 5/5/2006.(rsh) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. Modified on 1/24/2006 to change document security (scg). (Entered: 12/06/2005)
3 DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER 5 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Gammans Architectural.(rsh) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. Modified on 1/24/2006 to change document security (scg). (Entered: 12/06/2005)
4 ORDER directing defendants to obtain counsel & notify Clerk w/in 20 days of entry of this Order of appointment of attorney, Signed by Judge Jack T. Camp on 12/7/05. (scg) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
Submission of 4 Order directing defendants to obtain counsel & notify Clerk w/in 20 days, submitted to District Judge Jack T. Camp. (scg) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
Submission of 4 Order directing defendants to obtain counsel, submitted to Magistrate Judge Janet F. King. (scg) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
5 FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that default be entered against defendants for failure to comply with 4 Order; directing clerk to strike answers. Within 20 days of entry of default, plaintiff may apply for entry of a default judgment. Signed by Judge Janet F. King on 1/6/06. (Attachments: # 1 Order for Service of Report & Recommendation)(scg) Modified on 1/24/2006 to correct docket text to more accurately reflect language in Report & Recommendation (scg). (Entered: 01/06/2006)
6 RESPONSE to 5 FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint, filed by Gammans Architectural Products, Inc. (scg) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
Submission of 5 FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint, submitted to District Judge Jack T. Camp. (scg) (Entered: 01/23/2006)

2 of 5

5/9/2007 4:18 PM

CM/ECF LIVE v3 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?336051734541616-L_3...

01/23/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 02/07/2006
02/13/2006 04/28/2006 04/28/2006
05/01/2006

7 RESPONSE to 6 defendant's Response to 5 Report and Recommendation, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Royal, S.) Modified on 1/30/2006 to correct docket text to accurately reflect title of e-filed pleading (scg). (Entered: 01/23/2006)
8 MOTION for Clerk's Entry of Default and Default Judgment as to Gammans Architectural, d/b/a Skylights International, Inc. and Gammans Architectural Products, Inc. by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Royal, S.) Modified on 1/30/2006 to correct docket text to accurately reflect title of e-filed pleading (scg). (Entered: 01/27/2006)
Clerk's Entry of Default as to Gammans Architectural, Gammans Architectural Products, Inc. (scg) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
9 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge Jack T. Camp recused. Case reassigned to Judge Clarence Cooper for all further proceedings; Signed by Judge Jack T. Camp on 1/31/06. (scg) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
10 NOTICE to all counsel and parties of reassignment of case to Honorable Clarence Cooper. (scg) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
Submission of 5 FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, submitted to District Judge Clarence Cooper. (scg) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
11 ORDER adopting in part the 5 Final Report and Recommendation as to the recommendation that defendants were due to have default entered against them, and rejecting in part as to the recommendation that the Plaintiff apply to the Clerk for entry of default judgment, the Magistrate should have recommended that Plaintiff apply to the Court for entry of default judgment, which the plaintiff has done. Signed by Judge Clarence Cooper on 2/7/06. (scg) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
Submission of 8 Plaintiff's MOTION for Default Judgment as to Gammans Architectural, d/b/a Skylights International, Inc. and Gammans Architectural Products, Inc., submitted to District Judge Clarence Cooper. (scg) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Janet F. King. (vs) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
12 ORDER granting 8 Motion for Default Judgment (see order for details). The Court further Orders that this matter be Referred back to Magistrate Judge Janet F. King for an evidentiary hrg to be held on the issue of whether Dfts' unlawful employment practices were intentional and carried out with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson and on the issue of damages, including w/o limitation and punitive damages, due Mr. Richardson and Mr. Hall. A final judgment shall issue following the undersigned's consideration of Magistrate Judge King's Report and Recommendation and any objections thereto. Signed by Judge Clarence Cooper on 4/28/06. (vs) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
Submission of 12 Order on Motion for Default Judgment,submitted to Magistrate Judge Janet F. King. (vs) (Entered: 05/01/2006)

3 of 5

5/9/2007 4:18 PM

CM/ECF LIVE v3 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?336051734541616-L_3...

05/08/2006 06/22/2006 06/26/2006 06/26/2006 06/27/2006 07/12/2006 07/18/2006 07/20/2006
08/11/2006 10/26/2006 10/26/2006
10/26/2006

13 ORDER Setting Hearing on plaintiff's 8 Motion for default judgment,Evidentiary Hearing set for 6/26/2006 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 2008 before Judge Janet F. King. Signed by Judge Janet F. King on 5/8/06. (scg) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Pamela A Alfred-George on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Alfred-George, Pamela) (Entered: 06/22/2006)
16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Janet F. King : Evidentiary Hearing as to damages held on 6/26/2006. Plaintiff's Exhibits admitted; Exhibits retained by Court. (Attachments: # 1 EEOC's Exhibit List# 2 EEOC's Witness List) (Court Reporter Donna Keeble.)(scg) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
17 APPLICATION for Final Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 I - Declaration of Gary Richardson # 2 Exhibits A - C to Declaration# 3 Attachment II - Declaration of James Hall# 4 Exhibits A - F to Declaration# 5 Attachments III - VI)(scg) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
15 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Notification of Legal Authorities (Royal, S.) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
18 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on June 26, 2006 before Mag Judge Janet F. King. Court Reporter: Donna C. Keeble. (dfb) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
Submission of 17 APPLICATION for Final Judgment, submitted to Magistrate Judge Janet F. King. (scg) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
19 FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, recommending that Mr. Richardson recover from Defendants the sum of $77,484.18 which represents back pay of $42,484.18 and compensatory damages of $35,000.00, further recommending that Mr. Hall recover from Defendants the sum of $85,124.15 which represents back pay of $50,124.15 and compensatory damages of $35,000; Signed by Judge Janet F. King on 7/20/06. (scg) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
Submission of 19 FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, submitted to District Judge Clarence Cooper. (scg) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
20 ORDER adopting 19Final Report and Recommendation, directing that judgment be entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, awarding Gary Richardson $77,484.18 & James Hall $85,124.15. Signed by Judge Clarence Cooper on 10/26/06. (scg) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
21 DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff against Gammans Architectural, Gammans Architectural Products, Inc., permanently enjoining Defendants from discriminatory employment practices; awarding Gary Richardson $77,484.18 & James Hall $85,124.15. (scg) --Please refer to http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov to obtain an appeals jurisdiction checklist-- (Entered: 10/26/2006)
Civil Case Terminated. (scg) (Entered: 10/26/2006)

4 of 5

5/9/2007 4:18 PM

CM/ECF LIVE v3 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?336051734541616-L_3...

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/09/2007 17:18:11

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

eeoc 3:05-cv-00097-CC 0.24

5 of 5

5/9/2007 4:18 PM