IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Civil Action No. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintitl·,
v.
MITCHELL TEMPORARY, and DAKOTA PORK INDUSTRIES,
Defendants.

FILED
SEP 2 9 2003
~~

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
NATURE OF THE ACTION This action arises 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 Varia Kryger ("Kryger"), who was adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity below, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Plaintiff" or the "Commission") alleges that Mitchell Temporary ("Mitchell Temporary") and Dakota Pork Industries ("Dakota Pork") unlawfully failed to hire Kryger because of her disability, deafness.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE I. 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 107(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.c. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference
Sections 706(t)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(t)(l) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.c. § 1981A.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were cOimnitted within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Comrnission (the "Commission"), is an agency of the United States government 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 Sections 706(t)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(t)(l) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant Mitchell Temporary was a partnership of Lynette Venneulen and Denise Arend, doing business in Mitchell, South Dakota, and continuously employed at least 15 individuals.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Dakota Pork Industries has continuously been a South Dakota corporation doing business in Mitchell, South Dakota, and continuously employed at least 15 individuals.
2

6. At all relevant times, Defendant Mitchell Temporary has 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), 42 U.S.c. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.c. §§ 2000e(g) and (h).
7. At all relevant times, Defendant Dakota Pork Industries has 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), 42 U.S.c. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.c. §§ 2000e(g) and (h).
8. At all relevant times, Defendant Mitchell Temporary has been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.c. §12111(2).
9. At all relevant times, Defendant Dakota Pork has been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.c. §12111(2).
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 10. DefendmIt Dakota Pork Industlies is a meat packing! processing compmly. 11. Defendmlt Mitchell Temporary is a staffIng finn that provided temporary, temp-tohire, mId direct-hire services to Dakota Pork. 12. Kryger is a disabled individual who sought employment with Dakota Pork, mId was not hired either directly by Dakota Pork, or through Mitchell Tempormy 13. More thml thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Kryger filed charges with the Connnission alleging the Defendmlts violated Title I of the ADA. 14. All conditions precedent to tlle institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
3

15. Since at least September 20, 1999, Defendants have engaged in Ulllawful employment practices, in violation of Section 102(a) of Title I of tlle ADA, 42 U.S.c. § 12112(a).
Ms. Kryger's Disability:
16. Kryger is deaf. 17. Kryger's disability substantially limits the major life activity of hearing.
Ms. Kryger's Qualifications:
18. In September, 1999, Kryger began seeking work in the Dakota Pork meat processing plant.
19. Kryger had previously worked for nearly four years in a chicken processing plant. 20. During the time Kryger was seeking work at Dakota Pork, the company was hiring. 21. During the time Kryger was seeking work at Dakota Pork, tile company preferred applicants with prior meat processing experience. 22. During the time Kryger was seeking work at Dakota Pork, tile company hired several employees who were less qualified than Kryger. 23. During the time Kryger was seeking work at Dakota Pork, Mitchell Temporary hired several employees to work at Dakota Pork, who were less qualified then Kryger.
4

Ms. Kryger's applications to Mitchell Temporary: 24. During the relevant time period, Mitchell Temporary would keep applications on
me for a year, and fill positions from applications on me. 25. On September 20, 1999, Kryger applied at Mitchell Temporary to work at Dakota
Pork. 26. Kryger's application dated September 20, 1999, indicates her prior work
experience in meat processing. 27. When Kryger applied in September, 1999, she was interviewed at Mitchell
Temporary. 28. Kryger was not provided an interpreter for the interview at Mitchell Temporary in
September, 1999. 29. The interview at Mitchell Temporary in September, 1999, was conducted by
exchanging notes. 30. On September 20, 1999, Mitchell Temporary told Kryger that no jobs were
available at Dakota Pork. 31. On September 20 and 21, 1999, Mitchell Temporary hired six employees to work
at Dakota Pork. 32. Of the six employees hired on September 20 and 21, 1999, none were known to be
disabled. 33. On or about January 6, 2000, Kryger again applied to Mitchell Temporary for
work at Dakota Pork. 5

34. Kryger's application dated January 6, 2000, indicates she had nearly four years of

prior work experience in meat processing.

35. Kryger's application dated January 6, 2000, indicates she would work any shift,

any day.

36. Kryger was not hired when she reapplied for work on January 6, 2000.

37. On Febuary 28,2000, Mitchell Temporary hired Theresa Wolfcale and severaJ

employees to work at Dakota Pork.

38. On February 29,2000, Kryger learned WolfcaJe had quit her job at Dakota Pork.

39. On March 1, 2000, Kryger went to Mitchell Temporary to apply for the job

WolfcaJe had quit.

40. On March 1, 2000, Mitchell Temporary told Kryger that Dakota Pork did not need

a replacement for WolfcaJe.

41. Less than an hour after Kryger was told no jobs were available, Kryger's brother,

who is not disabled, applied at Mitchell Temporary and was offered ajob working at Dakota

Pork.

42. Pork.

On March 2, 2000, Mitchell Temporary hired four employees to work at Dakota

43. disabled.

Of the four employees hired March 2, 2000, to work at Dakota Pork, none were

44. Effective March 31,2000, Mitchell Temporary stopped providing employees to Dakota Pork.

6

45. Between September 20, 1999, and March 31,2000, Mitchell Temporary hired 67 employees to work at Dakota Pork.
46. None of these 67 employees was disabled.
Ms. Kryger's application to Dakota Pork:
47. Dnring the time Kryger was seeking employment at Dakota Pork, the compmly was accepting applications from walk-iiI applicmlts, as well as other sources such as Mitchell Temporary and Job Service.
48. Because of her disability, Kryger is provided job-search mId vocational assistance from a COlmnunity Service Specialist, Mark Koterwski.
49. DuriIlg the tinle Kryger was seeking work at Dakota Pork, Koterwski contacted Dakota Pork on several occasions, inquiring about employment opportunities for Kryger.
50. Koterwski informed Dakota Pork that Kryger was a deaf applicant who had prior meat processiIlg expeIience.
51. Each time Koterwski called Dakota Pork, the compmly made some excuse for not allowing Krgyer to apply at that time.
52. On one occasion, Kryger attempted to apply at Dakota Pork in person. 53. A security guard refused Kryger entry onto the premises and iIlformed her that she had to apply through Job Service. 54. During the time Kryger was seeking employment at Dakota Pork, the compmly hired several applicants who were less qua1ified than Kryger.
7

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Failure to Hire)
55. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint. 56. Kryger is disabled as defIned in the ADA. 42 U.S.c. § 12102(2)(A). 57. Kryger is able, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perfonn the essential functions of various positions available at Dakota Pork during the relevant time period. 58. Defendants refused to hire Kryger because of her disability. 59. Defendants' refusal to hire Kryger because of her disability is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, including but not limited to Section 102(a). 42 U.S.c. §12112(a), 12112(b)(5)(B). 60. As a result of Defendant's unlawful employment practices complained of herein, Kryger has suffered damages, including but not limited to emotional distress, lost earnings and benefIts, and job search expenses, in mnounts subject to proof. 61. The llillawful employment practices complained of herein, were intentional. 62. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein, were done with malice or reckless indifference to Kryger's federally protected rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a pennmlent injllilction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors,
assigns, mId all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging ill disparate or
8

adverse treatment of disabled employees or applicants and engaging in any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of disability.
B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportmlities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of past and present mliuwful employment practices.
C. Order Defendants to make whole Ms. Kryger by providing appropriate backpay
with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affilmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its mliawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement with all attendant rights and benefits or frontpay.
D. Order Defendants to make whole Ms. Kryger by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the mliawful employment practices described above, including job search and medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendants to make whole Ms. Kryger by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be detem1ined at trial.
F. Order Defendants to pay Ms. Kryger pmutive damages as warranted for its reckless indifference to her federally protected rights, as described above, in amolllts to be detennined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
9

H. Award the Commission its costs of tIns action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

Dated: September 26, 2003

Respectfully Submitted,

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel

JAMES 1. LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN REAMS Associate General Counsel

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507

JOSEPH H. MITCHELL Regional Attomey

10

NANCY A. WEEKS Supervisory Trial Attomey RITA BYRNES KITTLE Trial Attomey
~d-:::J~
ANN L. FULLER Trial Attomey EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Denver District Office 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-1347 FAX (303) 866-1375
NOTE: It is sufllcient for service on the EEOC that pleadings, notices, and any other court documents be served on the Trial Attorneys. Duplicate service is not required on the General Coullsel in Washington, D.C.
11

 
 FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

APR 0 12004

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

VARLA KRYGER,

)

)

Intervenor,

)

vs.

)

)

MITCHELL TEMPORARY and

)

DAKOTA PORK INDUSTRIES,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CIV. NO. 03-4222 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT

Varia Kryger through Donald P. Knudsen of Gunderson, Palmer, Goodsell & Nelson,

L.L.P. her attorneys for her Complaint against the Defendants states as follows:

JURISDICTION

1. The Court's jurisdiction over this matter is authorized by 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331, 1343

in conjunction with § 107(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,42 U.S.C. §

12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(t)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(t)(I) and (3), as well as Section 102 of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A.

2. Because the Defendants' alleged wTongful conduct occurred in Mitchell, Davison

County, South Dakota, proper venue for the action is in the United States District Court for the

District of South Dakota, Southern Division. 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"),

is an agency of the United States government charged with the administration, interpretation

I)oc# 306624vl. 7410·040126

1

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 Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-S(f)(I) and (3).
4. Kryger is a disabled individual who sought employment with Dakota Pork, and was not hired either directly by Dakota Pork, or through Mitchell Temporary.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Mitchell Temporary was a partnership of Lynette Venneulen and Denise Arend, doing business in Mitchell, Sonth Dakota, and at all times relevant to this Complaint employed at least 15 individuals.
6. At all relevant tines, Defendant Dakota Pork Industries has continuously been a South Dakota corporation doing business in Mitchell, South Dakota, and continuously employed at least 15 individuals.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant Mitchell Temporary has 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),42 U.S.C. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) ofTitle VII., 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(g) and (h).
8. At all relevant times, Defendant Dakota Pork Industries has been an employer affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § § 12111(5), and Section 101(7), 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(g) and (h).
9. At all relevant tunes, Defendant Mitchell Temporary has been a covered entity lmder Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2).
10. At all relevant times, Defendant Dakota Pork has been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.s..C. § 12111(2).

Doc# 306624vt, 7410-040126

2

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Defendant Dakota Pork Industries is a meat packing! processing company.

12. Defendant Mitchell Temporary is a staffing firm that provided temporary and

temp-to-hire to Dakota Pork.

13. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Kryger filed

charges with the Commission alleging the Defendants violated Title I of the ADA.

14. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

15. Since at least September 20, 1999, Defendants have engaged in unlawful

employment practices, in violation of Section 102(a) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.c. § 12112(a).

Ms. Kryger's Disability:

16. Kryger is deaf

17. Kryger's disability substantially limits the major life activity of hearing. Ms. Kryger's Qualifications:

18. In September, 1999, Kryger began seeking work in the Dakota Pork meat processing plant.

19. plant.

Kryger had previously worked for nearly four years in a chicken processing

20. hiring.

During the time Kryger was seeking work at Dakota Pork, the company was

Doc# 3066241'1. 74lO-040126

3

21. During the time Kryger was seeking work at Dakota Pork, the company preferred applicants with prior meat processing experience.
22. During the time Kryger was seeking work at Dakota Pork, the company hired several employees who were less qualified than Kryger.
23. During the time Kryger was seeking work at Dakota Pork, Mitchell Temporary hired several employees to work at Dakota Pork, who were less qualified then Kryger, Ms. Kryger's applicatiolls to Mitchell Temporary:
24. During the relevant time period, Mitchell Temporary would keep applications on file and fill positions from applications on file.
25. On September 20, 1999, Kryger applied at Mitchell Temporary to work at Dakota Pork.
26. Kryger's application dated September 20, 1999, indicates her prior work meat processing.
27. When Kryger applied in September, 1999, she was interviewed at Mitchell Temporary.
28. Kryger was not provided an interpreter for the interview at Mitchell Temporary in September, 1999.
29. The interview at Mitchell Temporary in September, 1999, was conducted by exchanging notes.
30. On September 20, 1999, Mitchell Temporary told Kryger that no jobs were available at Dakota Pork.

Doc#306624v1,7410·040126

4

31. On September 20 and 21, 1999, Mitchell Temporary hired six employees to work at Dakota Pork.
32. Of the six employees hired on September 20 and 21,1999, none were known to be disabled.
33. On or about January 6, 2000, Kryger again applied to Mitchell Temporary for work at Dakota Pork.
34. Kryger's application dated January 6,2000, indicates she had nearly four years of prior work experience in meat processing.
35. Kryger's application dated January 6, 2000, indicates she would work any shift, any day.
36. Kryger was not hired when she reapplied for work on January 6,2000. 37. On February 28,2000, Mitchell Temporary hired Theresa Wolfcale and several employees to work at Dakota Pork. 38. On February 29,2000, Kryger learned Wolfcale had quit her job at Dakota Pork. 39. On March 1,2000, Kryger went to Mitchell Temporary to apply for the job Wolfcale had quit. 40. On March I, 2000, Mitchell Temporary told Kryger that Dakota Pork did not need a replacement for Wolfcale. 41. Less than an hour after Kryger was told no jobs were available, Kryger's brother, who is not disabled, applied at Mitchell Temporary and was offered a job working at Dakota Pork.

42. On March 2, 2000, Mitchell Temporary hired four employees to work at Dakota Pork.

Doc# 306624v1. 7410·040126

5

43. Of the four employees hired March 2, 2000, to work at Dakota Pork, none were disabled.
44. Effective March 31, 2000, Mitchell Temporary stopped providing employees to Dakota Pork.
45. Between September 20, 1999, and March 31,2000, Mitchell Temporary hired 67 employees to work at Dakota Pork.
46. None of these 67 employees was disabled. Ms. Kryger's application to Dakota Pork:
47. During the time Kryger was seeking employment at Dakota Pork, the company was accepting applications from walk-in applicants, as well as other sources such as Mitchell Temporary and Job Service.
48. Because of her disability, Kryger is provided job-search and vocational assistance fTom a Community Service Specialist, Mark Koterwski.
49. During the time Kryger was seeking work at Dakota Pork, Koterwski contacted Dakota Pork on several occasions, inquiring about employment opportunities for Kryger.
50. Koterwski unformed Dakota Pork that Kryger was a deaf applicant who had prior meat processing experience.
51. Each time Koterwski called Dakota Pork, the company made some excuse for not allowing Krgyer to apply at that time.
52. On one occasion, Kryger attempted to apply at Dakota Pork in person. 53. A security guard refused Kryger entry onto the premises and informed her that she had to apply through Job Service.

Doc# 306624vl. 74JO.(J40126

6

54. During the time Kryger was seeking employment at Dakota Pork, the company hired several applicants who were less qualified than Kryger.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Failure to Hire)
55. Plaintiffrealleges the foregoing paragraphs ofthis complaint. 56. Kryger is disabled as defined in the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § l2102(2)(A). 57. Kryger is able, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of various positions available at Dakota Pork during the relevant time period. 58. Defendants refused to hire Kryger because of her disability. 59. Defendants' refusal to hire Kryger because of her disability is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, including but not limited to Section 102(a), 42 U.s.C. §121l2(a), 12112(b)(5)(B). 60. As a result of Defendants' unlawful employment practices complained of herein, Kryger has suffered damages, including but not limited to emotional distress, lost earnings and benefits, and job search expenses, in amounts subject to proof. 61. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein, were intentional. 62. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein, were done with malice or reckless indifference to Kryger's federally protected rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Kryger respectfully requests that this Court:
63. Provide Plaintiff full compensation including back pay, front pay, and compensatory damages for any economic and non-economic losses she incurred as a result of Defendants' unlawful discrimination;
64. Award punitive damages;

Doc# 306624\'1, 74[0-040126

7

65. Award Kryger's reasonable attorneys fees and costs as allowed by law; and
66. Award any other relief as is appropriate.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Plaintiff VarIa Kryger requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by
her complaint. Respectfully submitted this 151 day of April 2004.
GUNDERSON, PALMER, GOODSELL &N S N, LLP
BY: d~~~~!L!...!W-j~~~~~
n P. Knudsen Attorney for VarIa Kryger 440 Mt. Rushmore Road, Fourth Floor P.O. Box 8045 Rapid City, SD 57709-8045 (605) 342-1078

Doc# 306624vl, 74JO~040126

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 1st day of April 2004, I sent by first-class United States Mail,
postage prepaid, a true and correct copy ofIntervellor's Complaint to:
Ann Fuller Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Denver District Office 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203
Terry E. Schraeder Alaniz and Schraeder 16010 Barker's Point Lane, Ste. 500 Houston, Texas 77079
Jack Thee1er Morgan, Theeler, Wheeler, Cogley & Peterson, LLP PO Box 1025 Mitchell, SD 57301-7025
GUNDERSON, PALMER, GOODSELL & SON, LLP

Doc#306624vl,7410·040126

9

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Civil Action No. 03-4222

FILED
AUG 27 2004
~

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, and VARLA KRYGER,
Plaintiff/Intervenor,
v.
MITCHELL TEMPORARY, and DAKOTA PORK INDUSTRIES,

Defendants.

CONSENT DECREE (Dakota Pork)

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. RECITALS ............................................................... 1 II. JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1 III. ISSUES RESOLVED ...................................................... 2 IV. NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY ......................................... 2 V. MONETARY RELIEF ..................................................... 2 VI. EQUITABLE RELIEF .................................................... 3
A. Scope ........................................................... 3 B. Injunctive Relief .................................................. 3 C. Anti-discrimination Policy ......................................... 4 D. Procedures to Provide Reasonable Accommodation .................... 4 E. Affirmative Hiring ................................................ 5 F. Training ........................................................ 5 G. Notice Posting .................................................... 6 H. Record Keeping And Reporting ..................................... 7 VII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND FILING OF DECREE ................. 9 VIII. ENFORCEMENT ...................................................... 10 IX. EEOC AUTHORITY ..................................................... 10 X. COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES .......................................... 10 XI. NOTICE ............................................................... 11 Signatures .................................................................. 12 Attachment A ............................................................... 13 Attachment B ................................................................ .

I. RECITALS

1. This matter was instituted by Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission ("Commission" or "Plaintiff' or "EEOC"), an agency of the United States

government, alleging that, between September 1999, and March 2000, Defendant Dakota Pork

denied employment to Varla Kryger, because of her disability, deafness, in violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

2. The Commission and Defendant, desiring to settle this action by an appropriate

Consent Decree ("Decree"), agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the parties and the subject

matter of this action, and agree to the power of this Court to enter a Consent Decree enforceable

against Defendant.

3. This Decree is final and binding upon the parties as to the issues resolved, as well

as upon their successors and assigns.

4. The parties agree that this Consent Decree fairly resolves the issues alleged in this

lawsuit, and constitutes a complete resolution of all of the Commission's claims of unlawful

employment practices under the ADA that were made or could have been made in this action.

5. For the purpose of amicably resolving disputed claims, the Defendant joins with

the Commission in requesting this Court to adjudge as follows:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

II. JURISDICTION

6. The parties stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Court over the parties and subject

matter of this action, and have waived the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

7. Court.

The duration of this Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of signing by the

III. ISSUES RESOLVED

8. This Decree resolves all claims for damages against Dakota Pork Industries,

arising out of the issues and claims set forth in the above-captioned lawsuit, Civil Action No. 03-

4222 9.

Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and all other persons in

active concert or participation with any of them will not interfere with the relief herein ordered,

but shall cooperate in the implementation of this Decree.

IV. NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY

10. This Decree shall not constitute an adjudication and/or finding on the merits of the

case. By entering into this Decree, the Defendant does not admit the allegations of the EEOC's

Complaint, and maintains its contention that none of its acts, omissions, programs or practices

has at any time violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

V. MONETARY RELIEF

11. Defendant agrees to pay to Varla Kryger the amount of $100,000 as payment for

compensatory damages, interest, attorney fees, costs, and South Dakota sales tax. Defendant

shall issue two checks, in the amounts specified in the release agreement attached hereto as

Attachment B.

11.1 One check will be payable to Ms. Kryger for compensatory damages and

interest. No deductions will be made from this payment, and Defendant will issue a form 1099.

11.2 The second check will be payable to the law firm of Gunderson, Palmer,

Goodsell & Nelson, LLP, for attorney fees, costs incurred, and South

Dakota sales tax. No deductions will be made from this payment, and

P<:>O"P') "f 11

Defendant will issue a form 1099 to the law firm of Gunderson, Palmer, Goodsell & Nelson, LLP. 11.3 Payment pursuant to this Paragraph 11 shall be paid by certified check within five business days after entry of this Consent Decree by the Court; 11.4 Defendant shall pay all administrative and/or other costs associated with the payment of monetary relief under this Decree.
VI. EQUITABLE RELIEF A. Scope
l2. The terms of this Decree shall apply to all Dakota Pork facilities in South Dakota. B. Injunctive Relief
13. During the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant, its officers, agents, successors and other persons in active concert or participation with it, or any of them, are enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of disability.
14. During the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant, its officers, agents, successors and other persons in active concert or participation with them, or any of them, are enjoined from engaging in reprisal or retaliation of any kind against any person because of such person's opposition to any practice made unlawful under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or the Equal Pay Act, because of such person's filing a charge, testifying or participating in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under any of these statutes, because such person was identified as a witness or possible witness for the Commission, because such person participated in any manner in this action or in the investigation giving rise to this action, or because such person is designated as an aggrieved individual under this Decree.
1 Pl'lO"P ()f 11

C. Anti-discrimination Policy 15. Defendant shall adopt andlor maintain a policy proscribing discrimination based
on disability, and proscribing retaliation against any employee who complains about disability discrimination or who files a charge of discrimination regarding disability ("Anti-Discrimination Policy"). Defendant shall post and keep posted for the duration of this Decree, in a conspicuous place in each of its facilities, where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily kept or posted, a copy of the Anti-Discrimination Policy. For the duration of this Decree, Defendant shall provide each employee a copy of the Anti-Discrimination Policy. Within thirty days of the execution of this Decree, Defendant shall forward a copy of the AntiDiscrimination Policy to the Commission and a letter indicating that the Anti-Discrimination Policy has been posted and distributed. D. Procedures to Provide Reasonable Accommodation
16. Defendant shall adopt and maintain a written policy that will address how reasonable accommodation will be provided, by request or otherwise, during the hiring process and in the course of employment. The policy must be widely distributed to all employees. As to all managers who in any way participate in the hiring process or who in any way have responsibilities for accepting or processing requests for reasonable accommodation, the policy must set forth the role of each manager under the hiring process or under the process for considering reasonable accommodations for employees. The policy must provide guidance on how to determine what is a reasonable accommodation, including mandatory participation in the interactive process with the applicant/employee. Within thirty days of the execution of this Decree, Defendant shall forward a copy of the policy described in this paragraph to the Commission and a letter indicating that the policy has been distributed to all employees and that

instructions have been provided to managers who participate in hiring decisions or processing requests for disability accommodation in the work place. E. Affirmative Hiring
17. In consultation with professionals from the South Dakota Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, Defendant shall adopt goals for hiring employees who are deaf or hearing impaired, and Defendant shall seek to hire specified numbers of employees who are deaf or hearing impaired. F. Training
18. Beginning in calendar year 2004, and annually thereafter, Defendant shall conduct annual training for all its employees on what constitutes employment discrimination. Training will include employee notification of the Defendant's policy and procedures for registering complaints of discrimination. Defendant agrees that said training will also counsel employees on the penalties of engaging in such discriminatory behavior. Defendant agrees that said training will include the Defendant's non-retaliation policy. Defendant agrees that said training will include the Defendant's procedures on providing reasonable accommodation for disabled employees and applicants. All training shall be at Defendant's selection and expense, and will be conducted as follows:
18.1 Managerial and Supervisory Employees. Defendant will require all individuals who work in managerial or supervisory positions to receive at least four hours ofEEO training annually, at least two (2) hours of which will be ADA training.
18.2 Human Resource Employees. Defendant will require all individuals who work in human resource positions to receive at
PaQ"e 5 of 13

least fourteen (14) hours of EEOC training annually, at least six (6) hours of which will be ADA training. Such training will be provided by a vendor or vendors not affiliated or associated with Defendant.
18.3 New Employee Training As a part of new employee orientation, Defendant will show a video of not longer than one (1) hour, approved by the EEOC. The EEOC will provide Defendant a list of approved videos, and Defendant may select from the EEOC list or may request that EEOC approve a video not listed. 19. Defendant agrees that the first such session for each employee group identified in paragraph 18, above, will take place within one hundred twenty days after entry of this Decree. Defendant agrees that all personnel shall both register and attend the seminar training sessions. 20. The Commission, at its discretion, may designate one or more Commission representatives to attend any of the training sessions described above, and the representative(s) shall have the right to attend and fully observe all of the sessions. Defendant shall provide the Commission with thirty days notice that a training session will be conducted.
G. Notice Posting 21. Within five (5) business days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall
post in a conspicuous place in each of its facilities where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily kept or posted, the Notice attached as Attachment A to this Decree. The Notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree. If the Notice becomes defaced or illegible, Defendant will replace it with a clean copy. Defendant shall certify to the Commission, in writing, within twenty (20) days of entry ofthis Decree that the Notice has been properly posted and shall provide recertification in each ofthe semi-annual reports required under the
Pa2:e 6 of 13

Reporting provision of this Consent Decree. H. Record Keeping And Reporting Provisions
22. For the duration of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall maintain all records concerning implementation of this Consent Decree. The Commission shall have the right to interview any personnel employed by Defendant for the purpose of determining Defendant's compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree. In the event the Commission exercises its right to interview personnel pursuant to this paragraph, said interviews shall be scheduled with due regard to the convenience ofthe individual to be interviewed.
23. Each party shall bear its own costs in conjunction with the maintenance of records, preparation of any report, access or copying of records, or interviews of employees.
24. Defendant shall provide semi-annual reports for each six-month period following the date the Court signs the Decree. The reports shall be due thirty days following the respective six-month period, except the final report which shall be submitted to the Commission two weeks prior to the date on which the Consent Decree is to expire.
25. Each report shall provide the following information: Complaints of Disability Discrimination 25.1 The name, address and telephone number of each person making a complaint of disability discrimination to Defendant or to any federal, state, or local government agency. 25.2 A brief summary of each complaint, including the date of the complaint, the name of the individual(s) who allegedly engaged in the discriminatory conduct, the Defendant's response to the complaint, the name of the person who investigated or responded to the complaint, and what, if any
Page 7 of 13

resolution was reached; 25.3 Copies of all documents memorializing or referring to the complaint, all
documents gathered or created during investigation of the complaint, a summary of the investigation conducted and final disposition of the complaint. 25.4 For purposes of this Paragraph 25, the term "complaint of discrimination" will include any written or verbal complaint which alleges disability discrimination, or alleges conduct, which the Defendant recognizes as presenting an allegation of disability discrimination. For example, an employee may complain that he was denied promotion because of disability, or that co-workers call him "gimp" and tease him about his disability. These are "complaints of discrimination" even though the employee does not expressly allege discrimination. Reasonable Accommodation Procedures and Results 25.5 Defendant shall re-certify that it continues to utilize the formal procedures for processing reasonable accommodation requests, required under Paragraph 16, above. 25.6 A brief summary of each request for accommodation, including the date of the request, the person or persons to whom the request was made, the person or persons responsible for responding to the request, any effort to engage in the interactive process with the person requesting accommodation, what accommodation was requested, whether the request was granted, and if not, an explanation ofthe reasons for denying the
Page 8 of l3

request, whether an accommodation was provided and if so, what accommodation was provided, and a summary of the decision-making process utilized in determining what accommodation to provide. 25.7 Copies of all documents memorializing or referring to the request for accommodation, the interactive process, any investigation undertaken, and/or final disposition of the request. Affirmative Hiring 25.8 Defendant shall describe the recruiting efforts made to seek qualified individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired, to fulfill the established hiring goals, and Defendant's results in hiring and maintaining qualified individuals who are deaf or hearing-impaired. Training 25.9 Defendant shall submit copies of the agenda of the training programs, identify the individuals providing the training, and provide the registries of attendance. If training is conducted by Dakota Pork employees, Defendant shall provide a resume of qualifications for each trainer/instructor. Posting of Notice 25.10 Defendant shall re-certify to the Commission, that the Notice required to be posted under Paragraph 21 of this Consent Decree has been properly posted or, if removed, was promptly replaced, during the duration of the reporting period.
Page 9 of 13

VII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND FILING OF DECREE 26. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this cause for purposes of compliance with this Decree and entry of such further orders or modifications as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate equal employment opportunities for employees. Upon submission of the final report referenced in Paragraph 25, and the expiration ofa period of30 days after submission of said report, within which the Commission has not filed an objection thereto, the Commission and Defendant shall promptly file a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice ("Joint Stipulation") of this civil action, upon which filing this Decree shall automatically dissolve, and this Civil Action shall be dismissed with prejudice. If the Commission files an objection to the final report within said 30-day period, the Parties will file the Joint Stipulation promptly after the Court's resolution of the Commission's objection.
VIII. ENFORCEMENT 27. There is no private right of action to enforce Defendant's obligations under the Decree and only the Commission may enforce compliance herewith. 28. Enforcement may be had by the Commission petitioning the Court for enforcement of the terms of this Decree.
IX. EEOC AUTHORITY 29. With respect to matters or charges outside the scope of this Decree, this Decree shall in no way limit the powers of the Commission to seek to eliminate employment practices or acts made unlawful by any of the statutes over which the EEOC has enforcement authority, and are unrelated to the claims asserted in this lawsuit.
Page 10 of 13

X. COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES

30. Except as specifically set forth herein, each party shall be responsible for and shall

pay its own costs and attorney's fees.

XI. NOTICE

31. Any notice, report, or communication required under the provisions of this Decree

shall be sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, to the appropriate parties as follows:

Regional Attorney Denver District Office Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203

Dakota Pork Industries 915 E. Havens St. P.O. Box 1086 Mitchell, SD 5730
David M. Minces Alaniz and Schraeder, L.L.P. 16010 Barker's Point Lane Suite 500 Houston, Texas 77079 (281) 531-0927

SO ORDERED this ~1t" day of ~

,2003.

BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge

Page 11 of 13

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph H. Mitchell Regional Attorney

Nancy A. Weeks Supervi y Trial Attorney
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 Attorneys for Plaintiff BY CONSENT: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

T-:&L-
Alaniz and Schraeder 16010 Barker's Point Lane, Suite 500 Houston, Texas 77079 Attorneys for Defendant
DAKOTA PORK INDUSTRIES

BY:

DRAFT 2 - .July 22, 2004

Page 12 of 13

SUBJECT TO F.R.E. 408

ATTACHMENT A
NOTICE
The following notice is being posted pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree reached between the parties in EEOC v. Dakota Pork Industries, filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Civil Action No. 03-4222.
Management of Dakota Pork Industries wishes to emphasize the company's fundamental policy of providing equal employment opportunity in all of its operation and in all areas of employment practices, and to ensure that there shall be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment on the grounds ofrace, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age or disability. This policy extends to insurance benefits and all other terms, conditions and privileges of employment.
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate based upon an employee or job applicant being disabled. Further, it is unlawful for any employer to retaliate against an employee because he or she has opposed discriminatory employment practices, including disability discrimination, or because he or she has filed a charge of discrimination with any municipal, state or federal equal employment opportunity agency, or because he or she has participated in an investigation of a charge of discrimination.
Dakota Pork Industries respects the right of its employees and applicants for employment to work in an environment free from discrimination. Accordingly, Dakota Pork Industries reaffirms its commitment to complying with the strictures of the Americans with Disabilities Act, in that it is our policy to prohibit all discrimination in terms of hiring, promotion, compensation, benefits, discharge or discipline because of disability.
Any employee who believes that he/she has suffered discrimination on the basis of age, race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, or disability, has the right to contact the EEOC directly at 1-800-669-4000. In compliance with federal law, no official at Dakota Pork Industries will retaliate against an employee who makes an internal complaint of discrimination or who contacts the EEOC or its state counterpart.
This Notice shall remain posted for the term of five years.
Dakota Pork Industries

By:____________________________

Date:_____________

Page 13 of 13

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Civil Action No. 03-4222 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

FILED
AUG 27 2004
~.

Plaintiff, and VARLA KRYGER,
Plaintiff/Intervenor,
v.
MITCHELL TEMPORARY, and DAKOTA PORK INDUSTRIES,

Defendants.

CONSENT DECREE (Mitchell Temporary)

I. RECITALS 1. This matter was instituted by Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission" or "Plaintiff' or "EEOC"), an agency of the United States government, alleging that, between September 1999, and March 2000, Defendant Mitchell Temporary denied employment to Varla Kryger, because of her disability, deafness, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). 2. Defendant Mitchell Temporary ("Mitchell"), is a partnership of Denise Arend and Lynette Vermeulen. Mitchell Temporary is no longer doing business. Neither Arend nor Vermeulen are presently owners or partners in any employee-placement business. As Arend and Vermeulen are presently employed, neither has authority for personnel decisions such as hiring, firing, employee discipline, or providing reasonable accommodation for disabled employees or applicants. 3. The Commission and Mitchell, desiring to settle this action by an appropriate Consent Decree ("Decree"), agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the parties and the subject matter of this action, and agree to the power of this Court to enter a Consent Decree enforceable against Mitchell, and its principals, Arend and Vermeulen. 4. This Decree is final and binding upon the parties as to the issues resolved, as well as upon their successors and assigns. 5. The parties agree that this Consent Decree fairly resolves the issues alleged in this lawsuit, and constitutes a complete resolution of all of the Commission's claims of unlawful employment practices under the ADA that were made or could have been made in this action. 6. For the purpose of amicably resolving disputed claims, the Defendant joins with the Commission in requesting this Court to adjudge as follows:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: II. JURISDICTION
7. The parties stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Court over the parties and subject matter of this action, and have waived the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
8. The duration of this Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of signing by the Court.
III. ISSUES RESOLVED 9. This Decree resolves all claims against Mitchell Temporary for damages arising out of the issues and claims set forth in the above-captioned lawsuit, Civil Action No. 03-4222. 10. Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them will not interfere with the relief herein ordered, but shall cooperate in the implementation of this Decree.
IV. NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY 11. This Decree shall not constitute an adjudication and/or finding on the merits of the case. By entering into this Decree, the Defendant does not admit the allegations of the EEOC's Complaint, and maintains its contention that none of its acts, omissions, programs or practices has at any time violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
V. MONETARYRELIEF 12. Defendant agrees to pay to Varia Kryger the amount of$25,000 as payment for back pay, compensatory damages, interest, attorney fees, costs, and South Dakota sales tax. Defendant shall issue three checks, in the amounts specified in the release agreement attached hereto as Attachment B.

12.01 The first check will payable to Ms. Kryger for backpay, and will be subject to all required payroll deductions based on a W-4 form provided by Ms. Kryger. Defendant will issue a W-2 form to Ms. Kryger for this payment.
12.02 The second check will be payable to Ms. Kryger for compensatory damages and interest. No deductions will be made from the second check. Defendant will issue a form 1099 to Ms. Kryger for this payment.
12.03 The third check will be payable to the law firm of Gunderson, Palmer, Goodsell & Nelson, LLP, for attorney fees, costs incurred, and South Dakota sales tax. No deductions will be made from the third check. Defendant will issue a form 1099 to the law firm of Gunderson, Palmer, Goodsell & Nelson, LLP, for this payment.
12.04 Payment pursuant to this Paragraph 12 shall be paid by certified check within five business days after entry of this Consent Decree by the Court;
12.05 Defendant shall pay all administrative and/or other costs associated with the payment of monetary relief under this Decree. VI. EQUITABLE RELIEF
A. Scope 13. The terms of this Decree shall apply to Mitchell Temporary, its principals, Denise
Arend and Lynette Vermeulen, and any employee-placement business in which either Arend or Vermeulen hold an ownership interest during the term of the consent decree.
14. The term "Defendant", as used hereafter, shall refer to Mitchell Temporary and any employee-placement business in which either Arend or Vermeulen hold an ownership interest during the term of the consent decree.
P::'o"P 1 of 11

15. The Mitchell principals, Arend and Vermeulen, are under an affirmative obligation during the term of this Consent Decree to inform EEOC within thirty (30) days of either (a) reopening Mitchell Temporary for business, or (b) acquiring an ownership interest in any employee-placement business. Such notice to EEOC will include certification of required postings under Paragraphs 18 and 24, below. Additionally, Arend and Vermeulen are under an affirmative obligation during the term of this Consent Decree to inform EEOC within thirty (30) days of accepting a position which includes responsibility for personnel decisions, such as hiring, firing, employee discipline, or providing reasonable accommodation for disabled employees and/or applicants. B. Injunctive Relief
16. During the term ofthis Consent Decree, Defendant, its officers, agents, successors and other persons in active concert or participation with it, or any ofthem, are enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of disability.
17. During the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant, its officers, agents, successors and other persons in active concert or participation with them, or any of them, are enjoined from engaging in reprisal or retaliation of any kind against any person because of such person's opposition to any practice made unlawful under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or the Equal Pay Act, because of such person's filing a charge, testifying or participating in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under any of these statutes, because such person was identified as a witness or possible witness for the Commission, because such person participated in any manner in this action or in the investigation giving rise to this action, or because such person is designated as an aggrieved individual under this Decree.

C. Anti-discrimination Policy 18. Defendant shall adopt and!or maintain a policy proscribing discrimination based
on disability, and proscribing retaliation against any employee who complains about disability discrimination or who files a charge of discrimination regarding disability ("Anti-Discrimination Policy"). Defendant shall post and keep posted for the duration of this Decree, in a conspicuous place in each of its facilities, where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily kept or posted, a copy of the Anti-Discrimination Policy. Additionally, a copy of the Policy will be provided to each individual seeking employment placement services from Defendant. D. Procedures to Provide Reasonable Accommodation
19. Defendant shall adopt and maintain a written policy that will address how reasonable accommodation will be provided, by request or otherwise, during the hiring process and in the course of employment. The policy must be distributed to all employees who interact with individuals seeking employment placement services from Defendant. The policy must provide guidance on how to determine what is a reasonable accommodation, including mandatory participation in the interactive process with the applicant/employee. Within thirty days initiating or reinitiating an employee-placement business, Defendant shall forward a copy of the policy described in this paragraph to the Commission and a letter indicating that the policy has been distributed and instructions provided to all employees who interact with individuals seeking employment placement services from Defendant. E. Affirmative Hiring
20. In consultation with professionals from the South Dakota Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, Defendant shall adopt goals for hiring employees who are deaf or
Palle 5 of 13

hearing impaired, and Defendant shall seek to hire specified numbers of employees who are deaf or hearing impaired. F. Training
21. If a principal (Arend or Vermeulen) reopens Mitchell Temporary, acquires an ownership interest in an employee-placement business, or accepts a position which includes responsibility for personnel decisions, within ninety (90) days of such development, she will undergo at least fourteen (14) hours ofEEO training, including at least six (6) hours of ADA training.
22. Beginning in calendar year 2004, and annually thereafter, Defendant shall conduct annual training for all employees who interact with individuals seeking employment placement services from Defendant. Training will include the following: (a) review of the Defendant's policy and procedures for providing reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities; (b) review of the Defendant's anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies, with emphasis on the penalties for violating such policies, and (c) viewing a video of not longer than one (1) hour, approved by the EEOC. The EEOC will provide Defendant a list of approved videos, and Defendant may select from the EEOC list or may request that EEOC approve a video not listed.
23. The Commission, at its discretion, may designate one or more Commission representatives to attend any of the training sessions described above, and the representative(s) shall have the right to attend and fully observe all of the sessions. Defendant shall provide the Commission with thirty days notice that a training session will be conducted. G. Notice Posting
24. Within five (5) business days after initiating or reinitiating an employeeplacement business, Defendant shall post in a conspicuous place in each of its facilities where
Page 6 of 13

notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily kept or posted, the Notice attached as Attachment A to this Decree. The Notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree. If the Notice becomes defaced or illegible, Defendant will replace it with a clean copy. Additionally, a copy of the Notice will be provided to each individual seeking employment placement services from Defendant. H. Record Keeping And Reporting Provisions
25. For the duration of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall maintain all records concerning implementation of this Consent Decree. The Commission shall have the right to interview any personnel employed by Defendant for the purpose of determining Defendant's compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree. In the event the Commission exercises its right to interview personnel pursuant to this paragraph, said interviews shall be scheduled with due regard to the convenience of the individual to be interviewed.
26. Each party shall bear its own costs in conjunction with the maintenance of records, preparation of any report, access or copying of records, or interviews of employees.
27. Defendant shall provide semi-annual reports for each six-month period following the date the Court signs the Decree. The reports shall be due thirty days following the respective six-month period, except the final report which shall be submitted to the Commission two weeks prior to the date on which the Consent Decree is to expire.
28. Each report shall provide the following information: Complaints of Disability Discrimination 28.01 The name, address and telephone number of each person making a complaint of disability discrimination to Defendant or to any federal, state, or local government agency.
Pa2"e 7 of 13

28.02 A brief summary of each complaint, including the date of the complaint, the name of the individual(s) who allegedly engaged in the discriminatory conduct, the Defendant's response to the complaint, the name of the person who investigated or responded to the complaint, and what, if any resolution was reached;
28.03 Copies of all documents memorializing or referring to the complaint, all documents gathered or created during investigation of the complaint, a summary of the investigation conducted and final disposition of the complaint.
28.04 For purposes of this Paragraph 28, the term "complaint of discrimination" will include any written or verbal complaint which alleges disability discrimination, or alleges conduct, which the Defendant recognizes as presenting an allegation of disability discrimination. For example, an employee may complain that he was denied promotion because of disability, or that co-workers call him "gimp" and tease him about his disability. These are "complaints of discrimination" even though the employee does not expressly allege discrimination.
Reasonable Accommodation Procedures and Results 28.05 Defendant shall re-certify that it continues to utilize the formal procedures
for processing reasonable accommodation requests, required under Paragraph 19 above. 28.06 A brief summary of each request for accommodation, including the date of the request, the person or persons to whom the request was made, the
Page 8 of 13

person or persons responsible for responding to the request, any effort to engage in the interactive process with the person requesting accommodation, what accommodation was requested, whether the request was granted, and if not, an explanation of the reasons for denying the request, whether an accommodation was provided and if so, what accommodation was provided, and a summary of the decision-making process utilized in determining what accommodation to provide. 28.07 Copies of all documents memorializing or referring to the request for accommodation, the interactive process, any investigation undertaken, and/or final disposition of the request. Affirmative Hiring 28.08 Defendant shall describe the recruiting efforts made to seek qualified individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired, to fulfill the established hiring goals, and Defendant's results in hiring and maintaining qualified individuals who are deaf or hearing-impaired. Training 28.09 Defendant shall submit copies of the agenda of the training programs, identify the individuals providing the training, and provide the registries of attendance. If training is conducted by Defendant's employees, Defendant shall provide a resume of qualifications for each trainer/instructor. Posting of Notice 28.10 Defendant shall re-certify to the Commission, that the Notice required to be posted under Paragraph 24 of this Consent Decree has been properly
Page 9 of 13

posted or, if removed, was promptly replaced, during the duration of the reporting period. VII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND FILING OF DECREE 29. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this cause for purposes of compliance with this Decree and entry of such further orders or modifications as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate equal employment opportunities for employees. Upon submission of the final report referenced in Paragraph 27, and the expiration of a period of 30 days after submission of said report, within which the Commission has not filed an objection thereto, the Commission and Defendant shall promptly file a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice ("Joint Stipulation") of this civil action, upon which filing this Decree shall automatically dissolve, and this Civil Action shall be dismissed with prejudice. If the Commission files an objection to the final report within said 30-day period, the Parties will file the Joint Stipulation promptly after the Court's resolution of the Commission's objection.
VIII. ENFORCEMENT 30. There is no private right of action to enforce Defendant's obligations under the Decree and only the Commission may enforce compliance herewith. 31. Enforcement may be had by the Commission petitioning the Court for enforcement of the terms of this Decree.
IX. EEOC AUTHORITY 32. With respect to matters or charges outside the scope of this Decree, this Decree shall in no way limit the powers of the Commission to seek to eliminate employment practices or acts made unlawful by any of the statutes over which the EEOC has enforcement authority, and are unrelated to the claims asserted in this lawsuit.
Page 10 of 13

X. COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES

33. Except as specifically set forth herein, each party shall be responsible for and shall

pay its own costs and attorney's fees.

XI. NOTICE

34. Any notice, report, or communication required under the provisions of this Decree

shall be sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, to the appropriate parties as follows:

Regional Attorney Denver District Office Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203

Mitchell Temporary c/o Jack Theeler Morgan, Theeler, Wheeler, Cogley &
Petersen, LLP 221 E. 3rd Avenue P.O. Box 1025 Mitchell, SD 57301-7025

Denise Arend 25951 Highway 37 Mitchell, South Dakota 57301

Lynette Vermeulen 300 East 14th Avenue Mitchell, South Dakota 57301

SOORDEREDthis o?1-1'tdayof ~

,2004.

BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge

Page 11 of 13

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph H. Mitchell Regional Attorney

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 Attorneys for Plaintiff
BY CONSENT:
r ( Date

. Theeler n Theeler Wheeler Cogley & Peterson LLP PO Box 1025 221 East 3rd Avenue Mitchell, SD 57301-7025 Attorneys for Defendant Mitchell Temporary
MITCHELL TEMPORARY
BY: Denise Arend, Partner
Date
BY: ~ty•t evJerrn~eu'l)ellrl,Pakrt1le-f h1if
f-I/-C)'-!
Date

DRAFT 2 - July 22, 2004

Page 12 of 13

SUBJECT TO F.R.E. 408

ATTACHMENT A
NOTICE
The following notice is being posted pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree reached between the parties in EEOC v. Mitchell Temporary, filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Civil Action No. 03-4222.
Management of Mitchell Temporary wishes to emphasize the company's fundamental policy of providing equal employment opportunity in all of its operation and in all areas of employment practices, and to ensure that there shall be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age or disability. This policy extends to insurance benefits and all other terms, conditions and privileges of employment.
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is unlawful for an employer or an employee placement service to discriminate based upon an employee or job applicant being disabled. Further, it is unlawful for any employer or employee placement service to retaliate against an employee because he or she has opposed discriminatory employment practices, including disability discrimination, or because he or she has filed a charge of discrimination with any municipal, state or federal equal employment opportunity agency, or because he or she has participated in an investigation of a charge of discrimination.
Mitchell Temporary respects the right of its employees and applicants for employment to work in an environment free from discrimination. Accordingly, Mitchell Temporary reaffirms its commitment to complying with the strictures of the Americans with Disabilities Act, in that it is our policy to prohibit all discrimination in terms of hiring, promotion, compensation, benefits, discharge or discipline because of disability.
Any employee who believes that he/she has suffered discrimination on the basis of age, race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, or disability, has the right to contact the EEOC directly at 1-800-669-4000. In compliance with federal law, no official at Mitchell Temporary will retaliate against an employee or applicant who makes an internal complaint of discrimination or who contacts the EEOC or its state counterpart.
This Notice shall remain posted for the term of five years.
Mitchell Temporary

By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Date:- - - - - - - -

Page 13 of 13

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, VARLA KRYGER,
Intervenor,
vs.
MITCHELL TEMPORARY and DAKOTA PORK INDUSTRIES,
Defendants.

)

CIV. 03-4222-KES

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

VarIa Kryger, Mitchell Temporary, and Dakota Pork Industries have stipulated that all claims pending against Dakota Pork Industries and Mitchell Temporary brought by Intervenor VarIa Kryger are dismissed. It is hereby
ORDERED that all claims pending against Dakota Pork Industries and Mitchell Temporary brought by Intervenor VarIa Kryger are dismissed with prejudice to refile, with each party bearing their own costs.
Dated August 27,2004. BY THE COURT:

KAREN E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - August 2004

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

EEOC v. Mitchell Temporary & Dakota Pork Indus. No. 03-4222 (D.S.D. Aug. 27, 2004)
The Denver District Office filed this ADA suit against a meat processing facility in Mitchell, South Dakota and a now-defunct staffing services company that provided temporary workers to the facility in 1999 and 2000. The district office alleged that both defendants refused to hire CP, a deaf applicant with prior meat processing experience, because of her disability. CP applied directly to both defendants for employment at Dakota Pork, and although defendants hired a number of workers during the time CP was applying, she was never hired. In fact, less than an hour after defendant Mitchell told CP there were no jobs available, Mitchell hired CP's non- disabled brother to work at Dakota Pork. Defendant Mitchell, which cross-sued defendant Dakota, claimed that it attempted to place CP with Dakota Pork but Dakota Pork refused the placement.
The case was resolved by two separate three-year consent decrees. Dakota Pork will pay CP $100,000 and Mitchell Temporary, a partnership, will pay her $25,000. Defendant Dakota's decree applies to all of its facilities in South Dakota. Even though defendant Mitchell Temporary is no longer in business, the terms of the Mitchell decree apply to the former business, its two principals, and any employee-placement business in which either principal has an ownership interest during the term of the decree. Both defendants are enjoined from engaging in disability discrimination, reprisal, or retaliation. They must adopt and/or maintain policies prohibiting disability discrimination and retaliation and each policy must address reasonable accommodation procedures. In consultation with the South Dakota Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, defendants shall adopt goals for hiring employees who are deaf or hearing-impaired and seek to hire a specified number of such employees. Finally, both defendants shall maintain all records concerning implementation of the decrees and make semi-annual compliance reports detailing discrimination complaints, processing of reasonable accommodation requests, and efforts to meet their goals for hiring hearing-impaired workers.

1 of 1

5/16/2007 3:01 PM

 
 South Dakota District Court Version 1.1 LIVE DATABASE - Docket R... https://ecf.sdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123515848636642-L_35...

U.S. District Court District of South Dakota (Southern Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:03-cv-04222-KES

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mitchell Temporary et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 09/29/2003 Date Terminated: 08/27/2004 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Ann L. Fuller Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Denver District Office 303 E. 17th Ave. Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-1347 Fax: (303) 866-1375 Email: Ann.Fuller@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy A. Weeks Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Denver District Office 303 E. 17th Ave. Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-1347 Fax: (303) 866-1375 Email: nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rita Byrnes Kittle Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Denver District Office 303 E. 17th Ave. Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-1347 Fax: (303) 866-1375 Email: Rita.Kittle@eeoc.gov

1 of 8

6/5/2007 3:23 PM

South Dakota District Court Version 1.1 LIVE DATABASE - Docket R... https://ecf.sdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123515848636642-L_35...

Intervenor Plaintiff Varla Kryger TERMINATED: 08/27/2004
V. Defendant Mitchell Temporary
Defendant Dakota Pork Industries, Inc.

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Varla Kryger 4205 W. Valhalla Blvd. Apt. 8 Sioux Falls, SD 57106 (605) 361-6151 Email: duanew78@aol.com PRO SE
Donald P. Knudsen Gunderson, Palmer, Goodsell & Nelson, LLP PO Box 8045 Rapid City, SD 57709-8045 342-1078 Fax: 342-0480 Email: dknudsen@gpgnlaw.com TERMINATED: 08/27/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John S. Theeler Morgan, Theeler, Cogley & Petersen PO Box 1025 221 E. 3rd St. Mitchell, SD 57301 996-5588 Fax: 996-6129 Email: jtheeler@morgantheeler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George N. Manolis Churchill, Manolis, Freeman, Kludt, Kaufman & Shelton PO Box 176 201 Farmers & Merchants Bank Bldg. Huron, SD 57350 352-8624 Fax: 352-2205 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 8

6/5/2007 3:23 PM

South Dakota District Court Version 1.1 LIVE DATABASE - Docket R... https://ecf.sdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123515848636642-L_35...

Cross Claimant Mitchell Temporary
V. Cross Defendant Dakota Pork Industries, Inc.
Cross Claimant Mitchell Temporary V. Cross Defendant Dakota Pork Industries, Inc.

Terry E. Schraeder Alaniz & Schraeder 16010 Barker's Point Ln. Suite 500 Houston, TX 77079 (281) 531-0927 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John S. Theeler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George N. Manolis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry E. Schraeder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George N. Manolis (See above for address)
Terry E. Schraeder (See above for address)

Date Filed 09/29/2003 09/29/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(SKM) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET (SKM) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

3 of 8

6/5/2007 3:23 PM

South Dakota District Court Version 1.1 LIVE DATABASE - Docket R... https://ecf.sdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123515848636642-L_35...

11/05/2003 11/05/2003 11/05/2003 11/05/2003
12/01/2003 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 12/24/2003 12/24/2003 12/24/2003 12/24/2003 12/30/2003 12/30/2003 01/14/2004 01/14/2004
01/14/2004 01/14/2004 01/15/2004 01/15/2004

3 NOTICE of Appearance by George N. Manolis on behalf of Dakota Pork Industries, Inc. (CLM, ) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
PRO HAC VICE fee paid by Terry E. Schraeder (CLM, ) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
4 MOTION for attorney Terry Schraeder to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc. (CLM, ) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
5 ORDER granting 4 Motion for Attorney Terry E. Schraeder to appear Pro Hac Vice; further Ordered that Terry E. Schraeder shall file a return and pay state sales tax pursuant to the laws of the state of South Dakota Signed by Judge Karen E. Schreier on 11/5/03. (CLM, ) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
6 NOTICE of Waiver of Service of Summons by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc. (SLL, ) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
7 NOTICE of Waiver of Service of Summons by Denise K. Arend, Agent for Mitchell Temporary (SLL, ) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
8 NOTICE of Waiver of Service of Summons by Lynette G. Vermeulen, Agent for Mitchell Temporary (SLL, ) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
9 ANSWER to Complaint by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc..(JMM, ) (Entered: 12/24/2003)
10 MOTION to Sever by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc.. (JMM, ) (Entered: 12/24/2003)
11 MEMORANDUM in Support re 10 MOTION to Sever filed by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc.. (JMM, ) (Entered: 12/24/2003)
12 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc.. (JMM, ) (Entered: 01/02/2004)
13 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand, CROSSCLAIM against Dakota Pork Industries, Inc. by Mitchell Temporary.(JMM, ) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Mitchell Temporary re 12 Answer to Complaint, Crossclaim (JMM, ) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
15 RESPONSE/Resistance to Motion re 10 MOTION to Sever defendant Mitchell Temporary filed by Mitchell Temporary. (SLL, ) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
16 BRIEF by Defendant Mitchell Temporary 15 in Support of its Resistance/ Response to Motion to sever defenfant Mitchell Temporary. (SLL, ) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Mitchell Temporary (SLL, ) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
18 MOTION to Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Sever 10 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (RCL, ) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
19 ORDER granting 18 Motion to Extend . Signed by Judge Karen E. Schreier on 01/15/04. (KC, ) (Entered: 01/15/2004)
20 Confirmation of mailing NOE to non-ecf counsel (MWT, ) (Entered: 01/15/2004)

4 of 8

6/5/2007 3:23 PM

South Dakota District Court Version 1.1 LIVE DATABASE - Docket R... https://ecf.sdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123515848636642-L_35...

01/23/2004
02/06/2004 03/03/2004 03/03/2004 03/11/2004 03/15/2004
03/16/2004 03/16/2004 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 04/01/2004
04/01/2004
04/16/2004 04/22/2004 04/23/2004
04/26/2004
04/26/2004

21 RESPONSE to Motion re 10 MOTION to Sever filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(CLM, ) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
22 REPLY to Motion Reponse re 10 MOTION to Sever filed by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc.. (SKM) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
23 First MOTION to Intervene as a Matter of Right by Varla Kryger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Complaint of Varla Kryger)(Knudsen, Donald) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
24 MEMORANDUM in Support re 23 First MOTION to Intervene as a Matter of Right filed by Varla Kryger. (Knudsen, Donald) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
25 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (SKM) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
26 RULE 26 Disclosures by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc., Mitchell Temporary. (Attachments: # 1, application for employment; # 2welcome to Dakota Pork; # 3job analysis; # 4 ham packer)(JMM, ) (Entered: 03/15/2004)
27 RULE 26 Initial Disclosures by Mitchell Temporary. (SLL, ) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Mitchell Temporary (SLL, ) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
29 ORDER granting 23 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Karen E. Schreier on 04/01/04. (KC, ) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
31 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT , filed by Varla Kryger.(RCL, ) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
32 Summons Issued for Intervenor Complaint as to Mitchell Temporary (one summons %Denise Arend, one summons %Lynette Vermeulen). Summons hand delivered to Intervenor Plaintiff's attorney. (RCL, ) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
33 Summons Issued for Intervenor Complaint as to Dakota Pork Industries, Inc.. Summons hand delivered to Intervenor Plaintiff's attorney. (RCL, ) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Mitchell Temporary (SLL, ) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
35 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc..(SLL, ) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
36 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 12/31/2004. Motions due by 1/28/2005. Signed by Judge Karen E. Schreier on 04/23/04. (KC, ) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
37 RETURN OF SERVICE Executed upon Defendant Dakota Pork Industries, Inc., served on CT Corporation System as Registered Agent for Dakota Pork Industries (BBH, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
38 RETURN OF SERVICE Executed upon Defendant Mitchell Temporary, served on Lynnette Vermeulen (BBH, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)

5 of 8

6/5/2007 3:23 PM

South Dakota District Court Version 1.1 LIVE DATABASE - Docket R... https://ecf.sdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123515848636642-L_35...

04/29/2004 05/13/2004 05/13/2004 06/18/2004 06/22/2004
06/22/2004
07/06/2004 07/06/2004 07/06/2004 07/06/2004 07/08/2004 07/08/2004
07/08/2004
07/08/2004

40 RETURN OF SERVICE Executed upon Defendant Mitchell Temporary, served on Denise Arend (BBH, ) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
41 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint 31, CROSSCLAIM against Dakota Pork Industries, Inc. and Jur Demand by Mitchell Temporary(DJP) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Mitchell Temporary (DJP) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
43 ORDER denying 10 Motion to Sever Signed by Judge Karen E. Schreier on 6/18/04. (CLM, ) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
45 MOTION for Summary Judgment and alternative MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Mitchell Temporary Services Cross Claims by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Mitchell Temporary Services Contract# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B - Affidavit of Dan Jarabek)(SLL, ) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
46 MEMORANDUM in Support re 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment and alternative MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Mitchell Temporary Services Cross Claims filed by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Mitchell Temporary Services Contract# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B Affidavit of Dan Jarabek)(SLL, ) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
47 APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT for Default Judgment by Defendant Mitchell Temporary. (SKM) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
48 MEMORANDUM of Law in support by Defendant Mitchell Temporary 47 Application for Default Judgment. (SKM) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
49 NOTICE of Hearing by Mitchell Temporary of Application for Default Judgment (SKM) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
50 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Mitchell Temporary (SKM) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
NOTICE of filing error - Dakota Pork Industries Motion For Leave was deleted as Local Counsel had not signed pleadings. (CLM, ) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
51 RESPONSE/RESISTANCE to Motion re 45 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Mitchell Temporary. (Attachments: # 1Affidavit of Denise Arend; # 2Affidavit of Lynette Vermeulen)(JMM, ) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
52 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 45 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Mitchell Temporary. (Attachments: # 1Affidavit of Denise Arend; # 2Affidavit of Lynette Vermeulen; # 3Mitchell Temporary contract)(JMM, ) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
53 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS re 51 Response to Motion, 52 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, by Defendant Mitchell Temporary, Cross Claimants Mitchell Temporary, Mitchell Temporary. (JMM, ) (Entered: 07/08/2004)

6 of 8

6/5/2007 3:23 PM

South Dakota District Court Version 1.1 LIVE DATABASE - Docket R... https://ecf.sdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123515848636642-L_35...

07/08/2004 07/13/2004
07/13/2004
07/16/2004 07/16/2004 07/16/2004 07/19/2004 08/27/2004

54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Mitchell Temporary re 51 Response to Motion, 52 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, 53 Statement of Material Facts (JMM, ) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
55 MOTION for Leave to file its Answer to All Cross Claims Asserted by Defendant Mitchell Temporary by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order for Leave to file Answer to All Cross Claims Asserted by Defendant Mitchell Temporary# 2 Affidavit Terry E. Schraeder# 3 Exhibit A Complaint and Jury Trial Demand# 4 Exhibit B - Defendant Dakota Pork Industries' Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint# 5 Exhibit C - Intervenor's Complaint# 6 Exhibit D - Defendant Dakota Port Industries' Original Answer to Intervenor's Complaint# 7 Exhibit E - Defendant Dakota Pork Industries' Original Anser to all Cross-Claims Asserted by Third Party Plaintiff Mitchell Temporary# 8 Exhibit F - Dakota Pork Industries' Motion for Summary Judgment and Alternative Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Mitchell Temporary Services Cross Claims)(CLM, ) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
56 RESPONSE to Application to Set Aside Entry of Default47 Request filed by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order granting Dakota Pork Industries' Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default# 2 Exhibit B - Dakota Pork Industries' Motion for Summary Judgment and Alternative Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Mitchell Temporary Services Cross Claims# 3 Exhibit C - Defendant Pork Industries' Original Answer to all Cross-Claims Asserted by Third Party Plaintiff Mitchell Temporary# 4 Exhibit C - Letter dated 6/7/04 from Theeler to Counsel Re: Mediation# 5 Affidavit Terry E. Schraeder# 6 Exhibit E Defendant Dakota Pork Industries' Motion to Sever Defendant Mitchell Temporary# 7 Exhibit F - Letter dated 3/10/03 from Ward to Office of the Clerk Re: Joint Discovery/Case Mangement Plan Under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure# 8 Exhibit G - Defendant Dakota Pork Industries' Answers to Mitchell Temporary's First Set of Interrogatories and Response to First Request for Production# 9 Exhibit H - Letter dated 2/19/04 Ward to Counsel Re: Joint Case Management Plan# 10 Exhibit I - Letter dated 6/16/04 from Magistrate Judge Simko to Counsel re: Mediation)(CLM, ) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
57 REPLY to Motion Reponse re 45 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc.. (RCL, ) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
58 ANSWER to Crossclaim by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc..(RCL, ) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
59 MOTION to Extend Expert Witness Deadlines by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kittle, Rita) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
60 ORDER granting 59 Motion to Extend expert deadlines. Signed by Judge Karen E. Schreier on 07/19/04. (KC, ) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
62 MOTION (STIPULATION) to Dismiss claims pending against Dakota Pork Industries and Mitchell Temporary brought by Intervenor Varla Kryger. Filed by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc., Varla Kryger, Mitchell Temporary. (RCL, ) (Entered: 08/27/2004)

7 of 8

6/5/2007 3:23 PM

South Dakota District Court Version 1.1 LIVE DATABASE - Docket R... https://ecf.sdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123515848636642-L_35...

08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 09/12/2005

63 CONSENT DECREE (Dakota Pork) re 62 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc., Mitchell Temporary, Varla Kryger. Signed by Judge Karen E. Schreier on 8/27/04. (RCL, ) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
64 CONSENT DECREE (Mitchell Temporary) re 62 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Dakota Pork Industries, Inc., Mitchell Temporary, Varla Kryger. Signed by Judge Karen E. Schreier on 8/27/04. (RCL, ) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
65 ORDER granting 62 Motion (Stipulation) to Dismiss . Signed by Judge Karen E. Schreier on 8/27/04. (RCL, ) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
MAILING Original File to Clerk's Office in Sioux Falls, SD (JLH, ) (Entered: 09/12/2005)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/05/2007 15:25:36

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

eeoc 4:03-cv-04222-KES 0.32

8 of 8

6/5/2007 3:23 PM