Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 1-1 Filed 01/05/2005 Page 1 of 5

KATHRYN OLSON, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY A. LUIS LUCERO, JR., REGIONAL ATTORNEY 12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 3 SEATTLE, WA 98104 TEL: (206) 220-6895 4 FAX: (206) 220-6911 Kathryn.Olson@eeoc.gov
5
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
6

7

8

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

12

13 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
14

15

Plaintiff,

16

v.

17 OBERTO SAUSAGE COMPANY,

18

Defendant.

19

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

)

)

20

NATURE OF THE ACTION

21

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

22 Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of religion and to

23 provide appropriate relief to Faduma Jama, Maryan Sheikhomar, Fadumo Omar, Sahra

24 Dahir, Ismahan Bihi, and Koresho Mohammad. The Equal Employment Opportunity

25 Commission (“Commission”) alleges that Defendant Oberto Sausage Company (“Oberto”)

26 failed to accommodate Ms. Jama, Ms. Sheikhomar, Ms. Omar, Ms. Dahir, Ms. Bihi, and

27 Ms. Mohammad’s religious needs and discharged them on the basis of their religion

OBERTO SAUSAGE COMPANY COMPLAINT - PAGE 1

E Q U A L E M P L O YM E N T O PP O R T UN IT Y C O M M I SS IO N Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 1-1 Filed 01/05/2005 Page 2 of 5

(Muslim). Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief, including pecuniary and

12 nonpecuniary compensatory and punitive damages, on behalf of Ms. Jama, Ms.

3 Sheikhomar, Ms. Omar, Ms. Dahir, Ms. Bihi, and Ms. Mohammad.

4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5

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

6 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(1) and

7 (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e-

8 5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C.

9 §1981a.

10

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

11 jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at

12 Seattle.

13

PARTIES

14

3. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the agency of the

15 United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement

16 of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII,

17 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1).

18

4. At all relevant times, Defendant Oberto has been a corporation continuously

19 doing business in the State of Washington and has continuously had at least 15

20 employees.

21

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Oberto has continuously been an employer

22 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and

23 (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-(b), (g) and (h).

24

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

25

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ms. Jama, Ms.

26 Sheikhomar, Ms. Omar, Ms. Dahir, Ms. Bihi, and Ms. Mohammad filed charges with the

27 Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Oberto. All conditions precedent

OBERTO SAUSAGE COMPANY COMPLAINT - PAGE 2

E Q U A L E M P L O YM E N T O PP O R T UN IT Y C O M M I SS IO N Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 1-1 Filed 01/05/2005 Page 3 of 5

to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

12

7. Since on or about November 3, 2003, Defendant Oberto engaged in unlawful

3 employment practices at its Seattle, Washington facility in violation of Civil Rights Act of

4 1964, §§ 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C., 2000e-2(a)(1). Defendant Oberto affected the terms and

5 conditions of Ms. Jama, Ms. Sheikhomar, Ms. Omar, Ms. Dahir, Ms. Bihi, and Ms.

6 Mohammad’s employment by failing to accommodate their religious needs and discharging

7 them because of their religion.

8

8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to

9 deprive Ms. Jama, Ms. Sheikhomar, Ms. Omar, Ms. Dahir, Ms. Bihi, and Ms. Mohammad

10 of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as

11 employees because of their religion.

12

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above

13 were intentional.

14

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above

15 were done with malice or with reckless indifference to Ms. Jama, Ms. Sheikhomar, Ms.

16 Omar, Ms. Dahir, Ms. Bihi, and Ms. Mohammad’s federally protected rights.

17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

18

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

19

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors,

20 agents, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in

21 any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of religion.

22

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

23 which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the

24 effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

25

C. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Jama, Ms. Sheikhomar, Ms. Omar, Ms.

26 Dahir, Ms. Bihi, and Ms. Mohammad by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment

27 interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to

OBERTO SAUSAGE COMPANY COMPLAINT - PAGE 3

E Q U A L E M P L O YM E N T O PP O R T UN IT Y C O M M I SS IO N Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 1-1 Filed 01/05/2005 Page 4 of 5

eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.

12

D. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Jama, Ms. Sheikhomar, Ms. Omar, Ms.

3 Dahir, Ms. Bihi, and Ms. Mohammad by providing compensation for past and future

4 pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph

5 7 above, including past and future out-of-pocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at

6 trial.

7

E. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Jama, Ms. Sheikhomar, Ms. Omar, Ms.

8 Dahir, Ms. Bihi, and Ms. Mohammad by providing compensation for past and future

9 nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7

10 above, including without limitation emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life,

11 in amounts to be determined at trial.

12

F. Order Defendant to pay Ms. Jama, Ms. Sheikhomar, Ms. Omar, Ms. Dahir,

13 Ms. Bihi, and Ms. Mohammad punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct

14 described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

15

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

16 public interest.

17

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

18 //

19 //

20 //

21 //

22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //

26 //

27

OBERTO SAUSAGE COMPANY COMPLAINT - PAGE 4

E Q U A L E M P L O YM E N T O PP O R T UN IT Y C O M M I SS IO N Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 1-1 Filed 01/05/2005 Page 5 of 5

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

12

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

3

4

DATED this 5th day of January , 2005.

5

6
A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. 7 Regional Attorney

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel

8 KATHRYN OLSON Supervisory Trial Attorney
9
10

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

11 BY:

/s/ A. Luis Lucero, Jr.

12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
13 Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400
14 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 220-6895
15

Office of the General Counsel 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507

16

Attorneys for Plaintiff

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

OBERTO SAUSAGE COMPANY COMPLAINT - PAGE 5

E Q U A L E M P L O YM E N T O PP O R T UN IT Y C O M M I SS IO N Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 1 of 15

1 The Honorable John C. Coughenor
2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISCTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

9

ISMAHAN BIHI, FADUMO OMAR, FADUMA )

10 JAMA, MARYAN SHIEKHOMAR, SAHRA

)

DAHIR, KORESHO MOHAMMAD 11

) )

)

12

Plaintiffs,

)

)

13

v.

)

)

14 OBERTO SAUSAGE COMPANY, a Washington )

15

Corporation; and RON HACKER, in his individual capacity,

) ) )

16

)

Defendants.

)

17

)

)

NO. CV05-0025 JLR
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VII AND THE WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION PURSUANT TO WASHINGTON’S INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ACT, and NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

18 NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys Gwynne Skinner and the Public

19 Interest Law Group PLLC, and with this Complaint, allege as follows:

20 I. PARTIES

21 1.1 Plaintiff Ismahan Bihi (hereinafter “Plaintiff Bihi”) was at all relevant times an employee

22 of Oberto Sausage Company until she was terminated in November of 2003. She resides

23 in King County, Washington, within the Western District of Washington.

24

25

26

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 1

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 2 of 15

1 1.2 Plaintiff Fadumo Omar (hereinafter “Plaintiff Omar”) was at all relevant times an

2

employee of Oberto Sausage Company until she was terminated in November of 2003.

3

She resides in King County, Washington, within the Western District of Washington.

4 1.3 Plaintiff Faduma Jama (hereinafter “Plaintiff Jama”) was at all relevant times an

5

employee of Oberto Sausage Company until she was terminated in November of 2003.

6

She resides in King County, Washington, within the Western District of Washington.

7 1.4 Plaintiff Maryan Sheikhomar (hereinafter “Plaintiff Sheikhomar) was at all relevant

8

times) an employee of Oberto Sausage Company until she was terminated in November

9

of 2003. She resides in King County, Washington, within the Western District of

10

Washington.

11 1.5 Plaintiff Sahra Dahir (hereinafter “Plaintiff Dahir”) was at all relevant times) an

12

employee of Oberto Sausage Company until she was terminated in November of 2003.

13

She resides in King County, Washington, within the Western District of Washington.

14 1.6 Plaintiff Koresho Mohammad (hereinafter “Plaintiff Mohammad”) was at all relevant

15

times) an employee of Oberto Sausage Company until she was terminated in November

16

of 2003. She resides in King County, Washington, within the Western District of

17

Washington.

18 1.7 Defendant Oberto Sausage Company (hereinafter “Defendant Oberto”) is a Washington

19

Corporation which is located and conducts business in King County, Washington, within

20

the Western District of Washington. It is an employer, as defined by Title VII (42 U.S.C.

21

§4000e, et seq.) and by the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60, et.

22

seq.

23 1.8 Defendant Ron Hacker (hereinafter “Defendant Hacker”) is and was at all relevant times

24

the Packaging Manager for Defendant Oberto’s factory located in Kent, Washington. He

25

was a manager for Defendant Oberto, and had supervisory powers over each of the

26

plaintiffs. He is an employer, as defined by the Washington Law Against Discrimination,

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 2

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 3 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 2.1 6 7 8 9 2.2 10 11 12 13 2.3 14 15 16 3.1 17 18 19 20 3.2 21 22

and thus is individually liable for acts of employment discrimination he commits in his capacity as an employer. In addition, at all relevant times, he was acting as an agent for Defendant Oberto.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1337. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, as they form part of the same case or controversy as the subject of Plaintiffs’ federal law claims. The Western District of Washington at Seattle is the proper venue for this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as all defendants reside in the state of Washington and at least one defendant resides in the Western District, and/or as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Western District. The Seattle Division of the Western District of Washington is the appropriate division in which to file this case, pursuant to local CR 5(e), as the claims arose in King County.
III. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE All conditions precedent to this lawsuit have been fulfilled by Plaintiffs. On April 27, 2004, they timely filed their complaints with the EEOC, alleging religious discrimination for failure to accommodate, and the EEOC issued Cause Determinations for each of the plaintiffs on August 23, 2004. After finding there had been a conciliation failure, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Defendant Oberto on January 5, 2005, for the discriminatory acts against the Plaintiffs.
IV. EVENTS

23

24

25

26

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 3

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 4 of 15

1 2 4.1 3 4 4.2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4.3 12 13 4.4 14 15 16 17 4.5 18 19 20 21 4.6 22 23 24

At all times, Defendant Ron Hacker, Supervisor Glen Cole, and all other supervisors and machine operators mentioned herein were acting as agents on behalf of Defendant Oberto Each Plaintiff began working for Defendant Oberto in the spring or summer of 2002. Each began working for Defendant Oberto at its plant located in the Rainier Valley (Rainier Plant). At some point prior to August of 2003, each was transferred to the plant located in Kent, Washington. Each plaintiff was working as a packager in the Packaging Department at the time of her termination. Each plaintiff, except Plaintiff Jama, worked the day shift. Until November of 2003, workers on the day shift worked an eight hour shift, five days a week, from 7 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. Plaintiff Jama worked the swing shift. Plaintiffs Omar, Sheikomar, Jama, and Bihi were terminated on November 10, 2003; Plaintiffs Dahir and Mohamad were terminated on November 21, 2003. All of the Plaintiffs are Muslim, and they engage in practices they sincerely believe are required by their religion. These practices include taking short prayer breaks several times spaced throughout the day, the precise times of which vary depending on the location of the sun, and thus the season. Under the Muslim religion, Ramadan is a period of fasting, reflection, devotion, generosity and sacrifice during which specific practices are required of Muslims. Ramadan is observed during the ninth lunar month of the Islamic calendar. In 2003, Ramadan took place from October 26 to November 24. During the holy month of Ramadan, Plaintiffs, like other Muslims, are required by their religion to fast from sunrise to sunset. They break the fast at sunset, at which time they also say a prayer. During the holy month of Ramadan in 2003, sunset typically occurred at around 5 p.m.

25

FACTS RELATED TO THE CLAIM OF FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE

RELIGION 26

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 4

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 5 of 15

1 4.7 Until November of 2003, Plaintiffs’ supervisors at the Rainier and Kent plants always

2

accommodated their religious needs by letting them take prayer breaks throughout the

3

year, including during the holy month of Ramadan.

4 4.8 In the fall of 2003, Defendant Oberto gave employees, including Plaintiffs, notice that

5

beginning in November, it would be changing its shift requirements, such that employees

6

would be required to work 12 hour days, three days a week. Defendant Oberto also asked

7

employees to vote on whether they preferred the day shift to run from 5 a.m. to 5 p.m., or

8

from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Because of their prayer schedule, each of the Plaintiffs who

9

responded stated she desired a 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. shift.

10 4.9 Sometime in October, 2003, Defendant Oberto gave notice to the employees that

11

beginning November 3, 2003, the day shift in the packaging department would be

12

changed to a 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. shift.

13 4.10 When Plaintiffs received notice of this change, sometime in mid to late October 2003,

14

they and others initiated a meeting with officials from Oberto to discuss their concerns

15

regarding how the new shift would impact their religious observance of Ramadan and

16

their need for prayer breaks.

17 4.11 Up until this time, Plaintiffs’ work for Defendant Oberto had presented no significant

18

obstacles to their observance of the requirements of their faith, as their supervisors had

19

allowed them small breaks to pray when needed, and the Plaintiffs were usually done

20

working by the time of their need to break the fast and/or pray around the time of sunset.

21 4.12 Because the new shift would go until 6 p.m., Plaintiffs wanted to ensure that they would

22

be able to take a short break at around 5 p.m. so that they could break their fast by

23

drinking water and engage in a short prayer. Not being allowed to take such a break

24

would interfere with their ability to practice their religion during Ramadan.

25 4.13 In the packaging department at the Kent factory, there are several production lines. At

26

some of the lines, on occasion, breaks are taken by all the employees at the same time.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 5

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 6 of 15

1

However, at most of the lines, breaks are taken by one employee at a time to ensure that

2

the lines can continue to operate during employee breaks. When an employee needs to

3

take a break at either of these lines, either during break time or for another purpose, such

4

as using the restroom, either another employee or a supervisor takes her place on the line,

5

if that is needed.

6 4.14 The first meeting that took place occurred on October 31, 2003. Defendant Hacker and a

7

Human Resources representative, Marilyn Harlan, were present for this meeting. Also

8

present were each of the Plaintiffs except for Plaintiff Jama (who had given the other

9

Plaintiffs permission to speak on her behalf). At this meeting, Defendants indicated to

10

the Plaintiffs and other employees that they would not be able to take a break at or around

11

5 p.m. to break their fast and pray.

12 4.15 At Plaintiffs’ request, a second meeting was held on November 1, 2003, which Plaintiffs,

13

except for Plaintiff Jama, and Defendant Hacker attended. Also in attendance at

14

Plaintiffs’ request was an individual from the Somali Community Center -- Mr.

15

Mohamad. At this meeting, the Plaintiffs and Mr. Mohamad indicated to Defendants that

16

the Plaintiffs wished to keep their jobs, but that due to their religion, it would be

17

necessary for them to break at approximately 5 p.m. for a drink of water and prayer. The

18

Plaintiffs indicated they would be willing to take only 3 -5 minute breaks for this

19

purpose, that they could take such breaks one at a time if more than two were on the same

20

line, and that they could fill in for each other during such breaks so that the lines could

21

continue to operate causing no disruption to the Company. The Defendants denied the

22

request. Plaintiffs also offered to take a shorter break during their regular break earlier in

23

the afternoon and take the remainder of their break at around 5 p.m. Defendants denied

24

this request as well. During this meeting, the Plaintiffs pointed out that many employees

25

took breaks to use the restroom during times when there were not official breaks.

26

Defendant Hacker responded that those situations were different – that in those situations

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 6

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 7 of 15

1

employees “had” to take a break, but that Plaintiffs did not have to take break, that it was

2

not compulsory. This offended Plaintiffs, who, due to their religion, are required to break

3

their fast and pray at around sundown, and feel this practice is compulsory. Defendant

4

Hacker also stated something to the effect that he himself had fasted before for personal

5

reasons, did not like it, and that as he stopped this practice, they could as well. He also

6

said something to the effect that if they wanted their jobs, they could stop fasting too.

7

These comments greatly offended Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant Hacker stated it was

8

not in his Company’s interest to accommodate the Plaintiffs.

9 4.16 Beginning on November 3, 2003, pursuant to the requirements of their religion, each of

10

the Plaintiffs took a break of approximately 5 minutes in length at around 5 p.m. during

11

their shift to get a drink of water and pray. Prior to taking these breaks, Plaintiffs gave

12

notice to the machine operators on their line or a supervisor that they intended to take

13

such breaks and ensured that someone else could step into their spots during the breaks, if

14

that was needed. Each Plaintiff received a written warning on at least two occasions prior

15

to their termination.

16 4.17 On each occasion they left their line, Defendant Oberto did not experience undue

17

hardship.

18 4.18 Defendants allowed non-Muslim employees to temporarily leave the line for other

19

reasons throughout the day, such as to use the restroom. In fact, Plaintiffs were allowed

20

to leave the line on occasion to use the restroom, but were not allowed to leave the line to

21

pray. During this time period, there were occasions when Plaintiffs Dahir and

22

Mohammad, and possibly others, were followed into the restroom by supervisors during

23

the day to ensure they were in fact using the restroom and not praying. This had never

24

happened before.

25

26

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 7

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 8 of 15

1 4.19 Defendant Oberto, and Defendant Hacker in particular, had instructed Glen Cole and

2

other supervisors not to allow Plaintiffs to leave their line at 5 p.m. for any reason, and

3

that if they did, they were to be given warnings, and then terminated.

4 4.20 On or about November 10, 2003, four of the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs Bihi, Omar, Shiekomar

5

and Jama were terminated by their supervisor, Glen Cole, after they indicated they did in

6

fact plan to leave their lines again at 5 p.m.

7 4.21 On or about November 21, 2003, Plaintiffs Dahir and Mohamad were terminated by

8

Defendant Hacker for having left their line around 5 p.m. for a prayer break. In Plaintiff

9

Dahir’s case, she had been given permission by her machine operator to leave her line at

10

5 p.m. for a short break, but was terminated for doing so anyway.

11 4.22 The requested accommodation – to take a short break at around 5 p.m. – was necessitated

12

by the employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Their requested accommodation

13

would not have, and in fact did not, cause any undue hardship to their employer.

14 4.23 The failure by Defendants to provide the necessary religious accommodation was done

15

with malice and/or with reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’ federally-protected rights to be

16

free from discrimination.

17

FACTS RELATED TO CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT

18 4.24 During the time of their employment, Plaintiffs, and each of them, were subjected to

19

discrimination and harassment by co-workers about which supervisors and managers

20

were aware or should have been aware, and by supervisors. This harassment and

21

discrimination was due to their religion, race, and/or national origin.

22 4.25 For example, while at the Kent Plant, co-workers would assault Plaintiffs by physically

23

pushing them while they were kneeling and praying. Also, on one occasion when all the

24

Plaintiffs were still working at the Rainier Plant, someone posted a sign on the wall in

25

front of where Plaintiffs prayed that was derogatory and referred to the “crazy people

26

looking for your Gods.” This was brought to the attention of Defendant Oberto,

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 8

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 9 of 15

1

specifically through a complaint to Glen Cole. Although Defendant Oberto, through

2

Glen Cole, took down the sign and made a statement at its next employee break to the

3

effect that everyone should respect each other, upon information and belief, it made no

4

efforts to determine who wrote the sign or who posted it.

5 4.26 On numerous other occasions, while at the Rainier Plant, the women found their prayer

6

rugs, which they kept in their lockers, in the garbage can. These prayer rugs were small

7

rugs the Plaintiffs used to kneel upon during their required prayers . Although Plaintiffs

8

informed Defendant Oberto who they believed was responsible for this repeated

9

harassment, the Company – which was also the custodian of property placed by Plaintiffs

10

in their workplace lockers -- did not investigate the incidents or take any action against

11

either the individual believed to be responsible or anyone else.

12 4.27 Additionally, some Plaintiffs were harassed because they needed to use water to wash

13

themselves when they went to the restroom. For physical and religious reasons, Plaintiffs

14

are required to take a container of water into the restroom with them to wash themselves

15

after they urinate. On one occasion, while one woman was filling a container of water to

16

use for this purpose, a co-worker went to a supervisor and told him that the women were

17

using water to go to the toilet. The supervisor, a male, rushed into the women’s restroom

18

while it was occupied by the women, grabbed the container from the woman who was

19

holding it and dumped it out. The supervisor also yelled something to the effect of “the

20

toilet is not a shower and you should use it without water,” and that they should either use

21

the toilet without water or “go.” Some of the Plaintiffs were present during this incident,

22

and all Plaintiffs heard about the incident. The use of the water in the toilet did not create

23

any undue problems or hardship for Defendant Oberto.

24 4.28 On numerous other occasions, Plaintiffs were harassed due to their religion, race, and/or

25

national origin by supervisors, machine operators, and other co-workers, about which

26

Defendant Oberto was aware or should have been aware. This harassment consisted of,

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 9

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 10 of 15

1

among other things, comments, snickers, physical pushing, hitting with pieces of

2

equipment, “shooing” away with a hand, and intimidating looks.

3 4.29 The harassment described above was unwelcome and offensive, was based on

4

employees’ religion, race, and or national origin, and was sufficiently pervasive as to

5

alter the conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment.

6 4.30 Plaintiffs were also discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment in

7

that when there was a slow down of work, their supervisors and/or machine operators

8

would send home employees who were Muslim and black (including Plaintiffs), while

9

keeping other non-black, non-Muslim employees at work, including temporary

10

employees who should have been sent home first. This affected Plaintiffs’ pay adversely.

11

In addition, Plaintiffs and other black and Muslim employees were not given the same

12

opportunities for overtime as other non-Muslim, non-black employees. Plaintiffs

13

complained about this to Oberto, but Oberto took no action to end the discrimination.

14 4.31 In addition, Defendant Oberto, through its supervisors and machine operators, all of

15

whom were acting as agents for Defendant Oberto, treated Plaintiffs differently than

16

similarly-situated non-Muslim, non-black employees by 1) requiring Plaintiffs to perform

17

the more difficult and undesirable jobs at the plant, even to the extent of on more than

18

one occasion asking a non-Somali, non-Muslim, and non-black employee to stop and

19

then directing one of the plaintiffs (Plaintiff Omar) to do the job instead; 2) preventing

20

Plaintiffs on certain occasions from rotating among jobs that required different levels of

21

physical effort as it allowed other employees to do; and 3) requiring Plaintiffs to perform

22

certain tasks by themselves that they allowed other women employees to do in pairs.

23

Plaintiffs complained about this conduct to Defendant Oberto, specifically Glen Cole, but

24

neither he nor the Company took any action to end the discrimination.

25 4.32 There were also incidents where Defendant Oberto did not provide Plaintiffs with forks

26

to move meat, even though other employees were provided with this equipment, which

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 10

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 11 of 15

1

made the task of moving meat easier. Plaintiffs complained about this to their team

2

leader, but the Company did nothing to address this discrimination.

3 4.33 The Company also discriminated against Plaintiffs in the terms and conditions of

4

employment by not attending to the safety needs of Plaintiffs in the same manner as it

5

attended to the safety of non-black, non-Muslim employees. In addition, when Plaintiff

6

Sheikomar had cut her finger at work, and when Plaintiff Omar had injured her shoulder

7

while at work, both injuries of which caused Plaintiffs Sheikomar and Omar to ask for

8

assistance and/or indicate they would have difficulty doing task requested of them, their

9

respective leads/machine operators made comments to the effect, “You look like a person

10

who does not want to work,” and “If you can’t do the job, leave now,” respectively.

11

FACTS RELATED TO THE INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION

CLAIM 12

4.34 On one occasion, Faduma Jama fell on her back while carrying a load of heavy meat. 13

While she waited for someone to help her, co-workers and machine leads said something 14

to the effect of, “She’s faking it; she just wants money.” 15

4.35 On or about December 15, 2002, while at work for Defendant Oberto on the production 16

line, a load of meat fell on top of a Plaintiff Jama’s leg and foot, injuring her knee and 17

foot. The line manager was present. One of her co-workers brought her to the hospital, 18

where she indicated it was a work-related injury. 19

4.36 When she returned to work a couple of days later, she took the emergency room report to 20

her manager, Bob. He said the accident had been her fault and that the Company should 21

not have to pay, and he made comments and engaged in action that was meant to 22

intimidate her in retaliation for having reported the work place injury. Because of his 23

actions and his attitude toward her, she felt her job was at risk. 24

4.37 In January of 2003, Plaintiff Jama fell on a wet floor while at work and caught herself 25

with her hands, injuring her right hand and both of her wrists. When she went to the 26

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 11

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 12 of 15

1

hospital, she told them she had injured herself at home. She told the hospital this because

2

she felt she would be fired if she indicated she was injured at work due to the way Bob

3

had treated her after she reported the first work injury. Plaintiff Jama subsequently did

4

not file a claim for workers’ compensation based on this injury within the required time

5

period after the injury because of Defendant Oberto’s threats and intimidation.

6

V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION FOR

7

FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

8

Against Defendant Oberto Sausage

5.1 Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1.1 through 4.37 as though fully set forth herein. 9

5.2 Plaintiffs, and each of them, had bona fide religious beliefs that required them to leave 10

the line to take a break for a few minutes around sundown to engage in prayer, and to 11

break the fast at that time during the holy month of Ramadan. 12

5.3 Plaintiffs, and each of them, informed Defendants of this belief. Defendants’ stated 13

requirements were that Plaintiffs could not leave the line for this purpose. 14

5.4 Plaintiffs, and each of them, were disciplined and then terminated for taking a break 15

around 5 p.m. to break their fast and engage in prayer, or for indicating their intent to do 16

so. 17

5.5 Defendants failed to take adequate steps to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs’ 18

religious beliefs. Defendants could have accommodated Plaintiffs’ beliefs without undue 19

hardship. 20

5.6 Defendants could have provided Plaintiffs’ requested accommodation – that they leave 21

the line for a few minutes in order to break their fast and pray – without undue hardship. 22

5.7 Moreover, Defendants failed to negotiate in good faith with the Plaintiffs in an effort to 23

reasonably accommodate their religious beliefs. 24

5.8 Defendants’ conduct and violation of the law have caused damages to Plaintiffs in an 25

amount to be proven at trial. 26

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 12

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 13 of 15

1 5.9 In addition, each of the Plaintiffs was terminated due to her religion.

2 5.10 By virtue of conduct outlined in this Complaint, Defendants are in violation of the Civil

3

Rights Act of 1964, “Title VII”, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1).

4 5.11 Each Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

5

VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION FOR

6

FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST

7

DISCRIMINATION Against Both Defendants

8 6.1 Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1.1 through 4.37 as though fully set forth herein.

9 6.2 Plaintiffs, and each of them, had bona fide religious beliefs that required them to leave

10

the line to take a break from work for a few minutes around sundown to engage in prayer,

11

and to break the fast at that time during the holy month of Ramadan.

12 6.3 Plaintiffs, and each of them, informed Defendants of this belief. Defendants’ stated

13

requirements were that Plaintiffs could not leave the line for this purpose.

14 6.4 Plaintiffs, and each of them, were disciplined and then terminated for taking a break

15

around 5 p.m. to break their fast and engage in prayer, or for indicating their intent to do

16

so. This conduct would not have caused, and did not cause, any undue hardship to

17

Defendant Oberto.

18 6.5 Other employees were allowed to leave the line temporarily for other purposes.

19 6.6 By terminating Plaintiffs due to their need to leave the line temporarily for religious

20

purposes, even though this did not cause and would not have caused undue hardship to

21

their employer, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs in violation of the

22

Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.030 and 49.60.180.

23 6.7 Each Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

24 VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: DISCRIMINATION BASED ON HARASSMENT

25

IN VIOLATION OF WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Against Defendant Oberto Sausage 26

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 13

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 14 of 15

1 7.1 2 7.2 3 4 7.3 5 6 7 8 7.4 9 10 11 7.5

Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1.1 through 4.37 as though fully set forth herein. The harassment described above, which was unwelcome and offensive, was sufficiently pervasive as to alter the conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment. Supervisors and managers of Oberto were personally involved in some of the aforementioned conduct constituting harassment. On other occasions, such managers and supervisors knew of the harassment, but failed to take appropriate action to end such harassment. By the aforementioned conduct that constituted harassment based on religion, race, and/or national origin, Defendant Oberto has discriminated against Plaintiffs in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, 49.60.030 and 49.60.180 Each Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

12

VIII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION,

13

RACE, AND NATIONAL ORIGIN IN VIOLATION OF WASHINGTON LAW AGAINST DISCRMINATION

14

Against Both Defendants

15 8.1 Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1.1 through 4.37 as though fully set forth herein.

16 8.2 Plaintiffs were members of protected classes based on religion, race, and national origin.

17 8.3 Plaintiffs were treated less favorably in the terms and conditions of employment than

18

similarly-situated, non-protected employees doing substantially the same work.

19 8.4 There are no legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for this disparate treatment.

20 8.5 By the aforementioned conduct that constituted discrimination based on religion, race,

21

and/or national origin, Defendant Oberto has discriminated against Plaintiffs in violation

22

of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, 49.60.030 and 49.60.180

23 8.6 Each Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

24

IX. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

DISTRESS

25

Against Both Defendants

26 9.1 Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1.1 through 4.37 as though fully set forth herein.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 14

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 13 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 15 of 15

1 9.2 2 3 9.3 4 5 9.4 6 7 9.5

Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs to provide them with a safe and discriminatory-free workplace. By engaging in discrimination and harassment, Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs. As a result of this breach, Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress in an amount to be proven at trial. Defendants’ breach was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ emotional distress.

8 X. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: COMMON LAW TORT FOR RETALIATIORY THREAT

9

FOR FILING A WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM. Against Defendant Oberto Sausage

10 10.1 Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1.1 through 4.37 as though fully set forth herein.

11 10.2 Based on the aforementioned conduct, Defendant prevented Plaintiff Jama from filing a

12

second workers’ compensation claim through threats and intimidation.

13 10.3 Plaintiff Jama has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

14 XI. RELIEF REQUESTED

15

Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

16 11.1 Judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages;

17 11.2 Judgment against Defendant Oberto Sausage for punitive damages;

18 11.3 Attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k) and RCW 49.60.030(2);

19 11.4 And other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

20 DATED this 18th day of February, 2005. 21

PUBLIC INTEREST LAW GROUP PLLC

22

23

s/ Gwynne L. Skinner

Gwynne L. Skinner, WSBA # 23490

24

Daniel S. Gross, WSBA # 23992

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

25

26

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

- 15

Public Interest Law Group PLLC
705 Second Ave., Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
TELEPHONE: (206) 447-0103 FACSIMILE: (206) 447-0115

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 1 of 16

1

The Honorable John C. Coughenour

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10

11 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

12

)

Plaintiff

)

13

)

14

v.

)

)

15 OBERTO SAUSAGE COMPANY,

)

)

16

Defendant.

)

17 __________________________________________) )

18 ISMAHAN BIHI, FADUMO OMAR, FADUMA )

JAMA, MARYAN SHIEKHOMAR, SAHRA

)

19 DAHIR, KORESHO MOHAMMAD,

)

20

)

Plaintiffs in Intervention. )

21 __________________________________________)

CASE NO. CV05-25C
CONSENT DECREE and ORDER OF DISMISSAL

22

23 I. INTRODUCTION
24 1. This action originated with discrimination charges filed with the U.S. Equal
25

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 1

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 2 of 16

1 Employment Opportunity Commission, Seattle District Office (“EEOC”) by Ismahan Bihi,
2 Fadumo Omar, Faduma Jama, Maryan Shiekhomar, Sahra Dahir, and Koresho Mohammad 3
(“Plaintiffs in Intervention”). Plaintiffs in Intervention alleged that Oberto Sausage Company 4 5 (“Oberto”) discriminated against them based on their religion when it failed to accommodate their

6 religious needs and discharged them on the basis of their religion, in violation of §703(a) of Title

7 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

8

2. The EEOC investigated the allegations made by Plaintiffs in Intervention. The EEOC

9 sent Oberto Letters of Determination with findings of reasonable cause that Oberto had violated
10

11 Title VII.

12

3. The Commission filed this lawsuit on January 5, 2005 in the United States District

13 Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of Plaintiffs in Intervention. Plaintiffs in
14 Intervention filed a motion for intervention on January 19, 2005, which the Court granted on
15 February 17, 2005. Oberto filed its Answers on March 30, 2005, stating that reasonable
16
17 accommodations were offered but rejected by Plaintiffs in Intervention, and raising a number of

18 affirmative defenses.

19

4. The EEOC, Plaintiffs in Intervention and Oberto want to conclude all claims arising out

20 of the above charges and complaints without expending further resources in contested litigation.
21 II. NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY AND NON-DETERMINATION BY THE COURT
22

23

5. This Consent Decree is not an admission of wrongdoing or an adjudication or finding

24 on the merits of the case.

25

III. SETTLEMENT SCOPE

26

27

28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 2

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 3 of 16

1

6. The EEOC and Plaintiffs in Intervention accepted a FRCP 68 Offer of Judgment

2 against Oberto, in the amount of Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($350,000), including
3 attorneys fees and costs. The judgment specifically excluded the injunctive relief at issue in this
4
5 consent decree. The parties also settled other claims against Defendants Oberto and Ron Hacker

6 for an additional Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000) and positive letters of reference, in

7 exchange for releases from each Plaintiff in Intervention and the entry of this Consent Decree.
8 This Consent Decree represents the final and complete resolution of all remaining allegations of 9
unlawful employment practices and right to injunctive relief contained in: (1) the charges filed by 10 11 the Plaintiffs in Intervention with the EEOC; (2) the Complaint filed herein by the EEOC; and,

12 (3) the Complaint filed herein by the Plaintiffs in Intervention, including all claims by the parties

13 for attorney fees and costs.
14 IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15 7. Jurisdiction is vested in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and
16
17 1345, and 1367. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of

18 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title

19 VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a; and the Washington

20 Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.010 et seq.
21 V. DEFINITION OF TERMS
22

23

For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply:

24

8. "The Effective Date of the Consent Decree" is the date the United States District Court

25 for the Western District of Washington at Seattle enters the Consent Decree and (Proposed)

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 3

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 4 of 16

1 Order of Dismissal.

2

9. Unless otherwise indicated, the word "days" refers to calendar days.

3 10. "Formal or Informal Complaints" includes any complaint of discrimination,
4

5 harassment, retaliation, or request for accommodation whether written or oral, made to or

6 brought to the attention of any Oberto supervisor or manager.

7

VI. MONETARY RELIEF

8

11. In a combined judgment and settlement of the claims made in this lawsuit, Oberto will

9 pay a total of Three hundred and sixty-two thousand dollars ($362,000) to Plaintiffs in
10

11 Intervention, including attorneys fees and costs. Specific details concerning the allocation and

12 payment of this combined judgment and settlement amount are provided by execution of the

13 judgment and incorporated into individual Releases signed by each Plaintiff in Intervention.

14 VII. AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
15 A. Compliance with Title VII
16

17

12. Oberto reaffirms its commitment to comply with Title VII. To further this

18 commitment, the company shall institute the policies and practices set forth below and monitor the

19 affirmative obligations of this Consent Decree. The terms of this Consent Decree apply to all
20 applicants to and employees of Oberto at its Kent, Washington facility.
21 13. Oberto will not retaliate against any applicant or employee for opposing a practice
22
23 deemed unlawful by Title VII or for making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any

24 investigation, proceeding, or hearing associated with this action.

25

14. Oberto and its managers are hereby enjoined from engaging in personnel practices

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 4

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 5 of 16

1 which unlawfully discriminate against applicants and employees in violation of Title VII on the

2 basis of religion.

3 B. Employee Records
4

5

15. Defendant will not disclose any information or make references to any charge of

6 discrimination or this lawsuit in responding to employment reference requests for information

7 about Plaintiffs in Intervention. In response to any inquiries other than through a subpoena or in

8 response to a inquiry by a governmental agency regarding Plaintiffs in Intervention, Oberto shall

9 follow its corporate policy of verifying the dates of employment and positions held.
10

11

16. Defendant will remove all written personnel actions contained in the files of Plaintiffs

12 in Intervention, including any “Employee Coaching/Corrective Action Notice” or letter of

13 termination, referencing any action taken by Oberto as a result of leaving the production line to
14 pray. Defendant affirms that there are no references to any charge of discrimination or this
15 lawsuit in Plaintiffs in Intervention’s personnel files. Defendant will not add any information or
16
17 references to Plaintiffs in Intervention’s personnel files or records regarding the charge of

18 discrimination and this lawsuit after the entry of this Consent Decree. Files containing

19 information about Plaintiffs in Intervention that have been developed during the subject litigation
20 will be maintained at the offices of Defendant's counsel, Lane Powell PC. Within thirty (30) days
21 of the effective date of this Consent Decree, Oberto will make Plaintiff in Interventions’ personnel
22
23 files available for inspection through Lane Powell PC.

24

25

C. Anti-Discrimination Policies and Procedures

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 5

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 6 of 16

1

17. Oberto will maintain a written equal employment opportunity policy which sets forth

2 the requirements of federal laws against employment discrimination and harassment. The policy
3 must contain provisions which address discrimination based on religion and employees’ rights to
4
5 have their religious beliefs accommodated. The policy must also provide that it is unlawful to

6 retaliate against any current or former employee for opposing any practice made unlawful by Title

7 VII. At a minimum, the policy must be available in both English and Somali.

8

18. Oberto shall institute and carry out anti-discrimination policies, procedures and

9 training for employees, supervisors and management personnel, to the extent not already
10

11 established, and will provide equal employment opportunities for all employees. Oberto will

12 evaluate and, where appropriate, modify the practices of its managers and supervisors in order to

13 prevent discrimination in employment. Oberto will ensure that its managers and supervisors

14 understand its Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) policies and how those policies define
15 and identify what constitutes employment discrimination.
16

17

19. The policies maintained by Oberto will ensure that the following policies, procedures

18 and practices are in effect:

19

(a) Discrimination and Harassment Policy.

20 (i) provide clear definitions and examples of prohibited discrimination,
21 harassment, and retaliation;
22

23

(ii) provide for substantial discipline for incidents of discrimination,

24

harassment, and/or retaliation;

25

(iii) provide a statement of its practice of accepting and investigating

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 6

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 7 of 16

1

complaints of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation in writing and

2

orally;

3 (iv) provide for a full and effective investigation of all complaints as well as
4

5

appropriate remedies for addressing violations of EEO policy, up to and

6

including termination; and

7

(v) indicate that, promptly upon the conclusion of its investigation of a

8

complaint, Oberto will communicate to the complaining party the results of

9 the investigation determination.
10

11

(b) Complaint Procedures.

12

(i) Oberto agrees to maintain a complaint procedure designed to encourage

13

employees to come forward with complaints about violations of its

14 discrimination, harassment and retaliation policy. As part of this policy,
15 Oberto agrees that it shall provide its employees with convenient and
16

17

reliable mechanisms for reporting incidents of discrimination, harassment

18

and retaliation. Oberto will make every effort to keep complaints

19

confidential to the extent possible.

20 (ii) Oberto agrees that it shall make every effort to maintain the
21 confidentiality of complaining parties and witnesses to the extent possible,
22

23

which may vary depending on the nature of the complaint.

24

(iii) Oberto agrees that it shall ensure that its policies and procedures

25

provide that complaint handling and disciplinary procedures regarding all

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 7

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 8 of 16

1

complaints of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation are investigated

2

and addressed promptly. Oberto will provide for a full and effective

3 investigation of all complaints as well as appropriate remedies for handling
4

5

complaints upon an investigation determination up to and including

6

termination. Oberto will promptly upon the conclusion of its investigation

7

of a complaint, communicate to the complaining party the results of the

8

investigation determination.

9 (iv) Oberto agrees that it shall make its best effort to ensure that
10

11

appropriate remedial action is taken to resolve complaints and to avoid the

12

occurrence of incidents of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation.

13

Oberto further agrees that it shall provide for appropriate discipline

14 including but not limited to, reprimands, demotion or termination, as
15 possible consequences for violations of its discrimination, harassment and
16

17

retaliation policies.

18

(v) All reports of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of

19

the law, and requests for accommodation received by Oberto must be

20 documented and an employee of Oberto must ensure that all such reports
21 and requests for accommodation have received a proper documented
22

23

response.

24

(c) Policies Designed To Promote Supervisor Accountability.

25

(i) Oberto agrees that it shall impose discipline designed to stop any

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 8

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 9 of 16

1

unlawful behavior, up to and including reprimands, demotion or

2

termination upon any supervisor or manager who engages in discrimination

3 or harassment or permits any such conduct to occur in his or her work area
4

5

or among employees under his or her supervision, or who retaliates against

6

any person who complains or participates in any investigation or

7

proceeding concerning any such conduct. Oberto shall communicate this

8

policy to all of its supervisors and managers.

9 (ii) Oberto agrees that it shall continue to advise all managers and
10

11

supervisors of their duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure

12

employees' compliance with the company's discrimination and harassment

13

policies, their obligations to document and investigate and to report any

14 incidents and/or complaints of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation
15 of which they become aware, in writing, to the Kent Human Resources
16

17

Department.

18

(iii) Oberto agrees that, in evaluating the performance and determining the

19

compensation of managers and supervisors, it will take into account

20 whether supervisors and managers take effective action to ensure
21 appropriate behavior/ EEO policies are executed and followed at the Kent
22

23

facility.

24

(d) Anti-Discrimination Training and Procedures

25

(i) Within sixty (60) days of the date of the effective date of this Consent

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 9

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 10 of 16

1

Decree, Oberto will distribute a written copy of its EEO policies to all

2

employees, both management and non-management. Copies of the policies

3 will be provided to employees hired thereafter within one week of their
4

5

employment. Oberto will provide EEOC with a written copy of its EEO

6

policies as part of its first annual report as provided in paragraph D.19

7

below.

8

(ii) Oberto agrees that it shall provide mandatory discrimination,

9 harassment and retaliation training to all Kent facility employees within six
10

11

(6) months, and agrees to provide mandatory harassment, discrimination,

12

and retaliation training to all new employees during employee orientation.

13

Thereafter, such training will occur yearly, and must include instruction on

14 religious discrimination and the employer’s reasonable accommodation
15 obligations and/or sensitivity training regarding matters of cultural diversity
16

17

in the workplace. An interpreter must be available to translate the training

18

for Somali employees. EEOC will have an opportunity to review the

19

training materials prior to the initial training date.

20 (iii) Within sixty (60) days of the execution of this Consent Decree, and
21 annually thereafter, and in addition to paragraph 19(d)(ii)above, Oberto
22

23

agrees to provide management and supervisory employees at the Kent

24

facility with one (1) hour training sessions which address EEO obligations

25

of managers and supervisors including the duty to investigate, report and

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 10

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 11 of 16

1

respond to complaints of discrimination and requests for reasonable

2

accommodation.

3 (iv) Oberto will notify the EEOC of the completion of all training and will
4

5

specify the names and job titles of the employees who participated in and

6

completed the training as part of its semi-annual reporting to the EEOC.

7

(e) Interpreter services for employees with Somali as primary language

8

Where there is a communication concerning personnel related issues between a

9 management representative of Oberto and any employee whose primary language
10

11

is Somali, Defendant will assure the Somali employee of his or her right to have an

12

interpreter present. Defendant will make a sincere effort and take all steps

13

necessary to assure itself that management communications with Somali employees

14 have been understood by such employees.
15 D. Reporting
16

17

20. Six months following the entry of this Decree and every six months thereafter for the

18 duration of the Decree, Oberto will send the EEOC a written report of Kent facility individuals

19 who, during the prior six- month period, complained of religious discrimination or made a request
20 for religious accommodation to Oberto and/or to a governmental agency, along with an
21 explanation as to Defendant’s response. Oberto also shall affirm steps taken to comply with all
22
23 other terms of the Decree.

24

21. Oberto shall submit a final report to EEOC 30 days before the Consent Decree

25 expires, including a statement that it has complied with all the terms of this Consent Decree.

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 11

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 12 of 16

1

E. Posting

2

22. Within two (2) weeks after entry of this Decree, Oberto shall post a notice in the form

3 of Exhibit A attached to this Decree in prominent and conspicuous locations in or near the
4

5 employee lunchroom/breakroom or other place within Oberto’s Kent facility premises where

6 employees tend to gather. The notice shall be posted in both English and Somali. The notice

7 shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree. In the event that the persons and/or
8 departments to whom individuals should make complaints alleging discrimination or retaliation 9
change during the term of the Decree, such that the information contained on the notice is no 10 11 longer accurate, Oberto shall immediately notify the EEOC’s so it may prepare a new notice that

12 contains the correct information. Oberto shall upon receipt of the new notice promptly replace

13 the old notices with the revised notices. Oberto shall notify its managers and supervisors that if

14 they become aware or if they are informed that the notice has been prematurely removed, that
15 manager shall re-post the notice within 48 hours.
16

17

VIII. ENFORCEMENT

18

23. If the EEOC concludes that Oberto has breached this agreement, it may bring an

19 action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle to
20 enforce this Consent Decree. Before bringing an action for breach of the Decree, the EEOC shall
21 first give the company a 30-day written notice. The EEOC and the company shall use that 30-day
22
23 period for good faith efforts to resolve the matter.

24

25

IX. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 12

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 13 of 16

1

24. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle

2 shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for the duration of the Decree.

3 X. DURATION AND TERMINATION
4

5

25. This Decree shall be in effect for five (5) years, commencing with the date the Decree

6 is filed. If the EEOC petitions the Court for breach of agreement, and the Court finds the

7 company to be in violation of the terms of the Consent Decree, the Court may extend this
8 Consent Decree. 9
// 10 11 //

12 //

13 //
14 //
15 //
16
17 //

18 //

19 //
20 //
21 //
22
23 //

24

XI. CONCLUSION

25

26. The provisions of this Consent Decree are not binding on the parties until the

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 13

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 14 of 16

1 authorized representatives of each party sign and the court enters the consent decree in the court.

2

3 A. LUIS LUCERO, JR.
4 Regional Attorney

5

KATHRYN OLSON Supervisory Trial Attorney

6

7 EEOC

8

Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400

9 Seattle, Washington 98104

Telephone 206.220.6895 10 Kathryn.Olson@eeoc.gov

Dated this 8th day of June, 2005
ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel JAMES D. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
Office of the General Counsel 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507

11 BY: /s/ Kathryn Olson
12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiff

14 KIMBERLY M. MEYERS
15 KARIN E. VALAAS LANE POWELL PC
16 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 17 Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone 206.223.3984 18 MeyersK@LanePowell.com

19 BY: /s/ Kimberly M. Meyers 20

Attorneys for Defendant

21

22

23

24

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

25

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 14

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 15 of 16

1

This notice is being posted pursuant to an agreement between Oberto Sausage

2 Company and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, entered as the result of a settlement of a lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
3 District of Washington at Seattle, Civil No. CV05-25C.

4

5

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Age Discrimination

in Employment Act of 1967, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Americans with

6 Disabilities Act of 1990 are enforced by the EEOC and require the following:

7

That there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for

8

employment because of the employee's race, sex, color, religion,

9

national origin, age (over age 40), or disability with respect to hiring,

firing, compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of

10

employment.

11

12

It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against any

employees or applicants for employment because they have opposed a

13

practice or because they have made a charge, testified, assisted, or partici-

14

pated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under these

statutes.

15

16

Oberto Sausage Co. has posted this notice because the company supports and

17

will comply with these federal laws in all respects and will not take any retaliatory action against employees because they have exercised their rights under the law.

18

DATED

19

Oberto Sausage Company

20

By:

21

22

EXHIBIT A

23

ORDER

24

The Court, having considered the foregoing stipulated agreement of the parties, HEREBY

25 ORDERS THAT the foregoing Consent Decree be, and the same hereby is, approved as the final

26

27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 15

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

Case 2:05-cv-00025-JCC Document 25 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 16 of 16

1 decree of this Court in full settlement of this action. This lawsuit is hereby dismissed with
2 prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to any party, except as provided by the Rule 68 3
Judgment. The Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for purposes of enforcing the Consent 4 5 Decree approved herein.

6

DATED this 1st day of July, 2005.

7 8

A

9

The Honorable John C. Coughenour

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 27 28 Case No. CV05-25C - Consent Decree Page - 16

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Telephone: 206-220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691
TDD: (206) 220-688

 
 WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 1 of 6

CLOSED, PROTO
U.S. District Court WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (Seattle) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-00025-JCC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Oberto Sausage Company Assigned to: John C Coughenour Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 01/05/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by A Luis Lucero, Jr EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1061 206-220-6883 Email: LUIS.LUCERO@EEOC.GOV LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Blaire Olson EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1061 206-220-6883 Email: kathryn.olson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Ismahan Bihi

represented by Gwynne L Skinner PUBLIC INTEREST LAW GROUP 705 SECOND AVE STE 501 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206-447-0103 Email: skinnerg@seattleu.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?546771723957857-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 2 of 6

Intervenor Plaintiff Sahra Dahir
Intervenor Plaintiff Faduma Jama
Intervenor Plaintiff Koresho Mohammad
Intervenor Plaintiff Fadumo Omar

Daniel S Gross PUBLIC INTEREST LAW GROUP 705 SECOND AVE STE 501 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206-447-0103 Fax: 206-447-0115 Email: dgross@pilg.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gwynne L Skinner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Gross (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gwynne L Skinner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Gross (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gwynne L Skinner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Gross (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gwynne L Skinner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Gross (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?546771723957857-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 3 of 6

Intervenor Plaintiff Maryam Shiekhomar
V. Defendant Oberto Sausage Company

represented by Gwynne L Skinner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S Gross (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James B Stoetzer LANE POWELL PC (SEA) 1420 FIFTH AVE STE 4100 SEATTLE, WA 98101-2338 206-223-7000 Email: stoetzerj@lanepowell.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karin E Valaas LANE POWELL PC (SEA) 1420 FIFTH AVE STE 4100 SEATTLE, WA 98101-2338 206-223-7000 Fax: FAX 223-7107 Email: valaask@lanepowell.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly M Meyers LANE POWELL PC (SEA) 1420 FIFTH AVE STE 4100 SEATTLE, WA 98101-2338 206-223-7000 Email: meyersk@lanepowell.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/05/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND against defendant Oberto Sausage Company (Summons(es) issued) (Receipt # waived) , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(PM, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/28/2005 (PM, ). (Entered: 01/11/2005)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?546771723957857-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 4 of 6

01/14/2005 01/18/2005 01/18/2005 01/18/2005 01/19/2005 01/19/2005 01/19/2005
01/19/2005 01/28/2005 01/31/2005 02/16/2005 02/17/2005 02/18/2005

2 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Kimberly M Meyers on behalf of Defendant Oberto Sausage Company (Meyers, Kimberly) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 2 Notice of Appearance: No image attached or image not accessible. Advised counsel to re-file notice of appearance. (AF, ) (Entered: 01/18/2005)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Kimberly M Meyers on behalf of Defendant Oberto Sausage Company (Meyers, Kimberly) (Entered: 01/18/2005)
4 SERVICE OF SUMMONS and Complaint returned executed upon defendant Oberto Sausage Company on 1/12/2005 (MD ) (Entered: 01/19/2005)
5 MOTION to Intervene. Noting Date 2/4/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint in Intervention# 2 Proposed Order Granting Intervention# 3 Certificate of Service)(Gross, Daniel) (Entered: 01/19/2005)
6 DECLARATION of Gwynne L. Skinner filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Ismahan Bihi, Sahra Dahir, Koresho Mohammad, Fadumo Omar, Maryam Shiekhomar, Intervenor Faduma Jama re 5 MOTION to Intervene (Gross, Daniel) (Entered: 01/19/2005)
7 Amended MOTION to Intervene by Intervenor Plaintiffs Ismahan Bihi, Sahra Dahir, Koresho Mohammad, Fadumo Omar, Maryam Shiekhomar, Intervenor Faduma Jama. Noting Date 2/4/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Intervene# 2 Complaint in Intervention# 3 Certificate of Service by Daniel S. Gross)(Gross, Daniel) (Entered: 01/19/2005)
8 DECLARATION of Gwynne L. Skinner filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Ismahan Bihi, Sahra Dahir, Koresho Mohammad, Fadumo Omar, Maryam Shiekhomar, Intervenor Faduma Jama re 7 Amended MOTION to Intervene (Gross, Daniel) (Entered: 01/19/2005)
9 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT Joint Status Report due by 3/28/2005; by Judge James L. Robart. (GG, ) (Entered: 01/28/2005)
10 RESPONSE, by Defendant Oberto Sausage Company, to 7 Amended MOTION to Intervene. (Meyers, Kimberly) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
11 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge James L. Robart recused. Case reassigned to Judge John C Coughenour for all further proceedings (CC, ) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
12 ORDER granting Interested Parties 7 Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiffs by Judge John C Coughenour. Counsel are Directed to E-File their Complaint.(LMS, ) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
13 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Ismahan Bihi, Sahra Dahir, Faduma Jama, Koresho Mohammad, Fadumo Omar, Maryam Shiekhomar.(Gross,

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?546771723957857-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 5 of 6

02/18/2005 03/23/2005
03/23/2005 03/30/2005 03/30/2005 04/04/2005 04/07/2005 05/24/2005 05/24/2005

Daniel) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Intervenor Plaintiffs Ismahan Bihi, Sahra Dahir, Koresho Mohammad, Fadumo Omar, Maryam Shiekhomar, Intervenor Faduma Jama. (Gross, Daniel) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
15 MINUTE ENTRY setting status conference:
The attorney who will be responsible for trying the case should attend the conference and be prepared to discuss the following matters at the conference: 1. The nature of the case, 2. The status of matters which are presently set before the Court, e.g., hearings, motions, etc., 3. The status of discovery and a time schedule for its completion, 4. A statement of any legal issues about which motions are contemplated and a possible briefing schedule, 5. An estimate of the number of days needed for trial, 6. Whether the case is jury or non-jury, 7. The date by which the case will be ready for trial, and 8. Settlement probabilities. Counsel for all parties are required to appear at the conference. If counsel office is outside of Seattle, arrangements can be made for telephonic participation in the conference. If counsel wish to make such arrangements, they should contact Julie Mahnke, Deputy Clerk at 206-370-8805. COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF IS DIRECTED TO NOTIFY ALL PARTIES OF THE DATE AND TIME OF THE SCHEDULED CONFERENCE. Status Conference set for 5/24/2005 09:00 AM before John C Coughenour. (JM, ) (Entered: 03/23/2005)
16 ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITIONS by Judge John C Coughenour. (JM, ) (Entered: 03/23/2005)
17 ANSWER to Complaint of Plaintiff EEOC by Oberto Sausage Company. (Meyers, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
18 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Ron Hacker and by Oberto Sausage Company.(Meyers, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
19 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER re Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order re Confidential Documents and Information by parties. (Meyers, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
20 Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge John C Coughenour. (LMS, ) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
HEARING CONTINUED: Status Conference set for 5/24/2005 is continued to 6/14/2005 09:00 AM before John C Coughenour. (JM, ) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
21 E-FILING ERROR, STRICKEN MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE: JCC; Dep Clerk: JM; CR: Zielie; Counsel: Whitehall/Geisness/Dazell; Called, counsel advises the Court of status. Court directs counsel to be guided by Local Civil Rule 16 in completing discovery and filing dispositive motions. Note that all depositions, discovery and perpetuation, must be completed before the discovery completion date. Jury instructions, if any, are to be filed with the Clerk

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?546771723957857-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 6 of 6

05/24/2005 06/08/2005 06/08/2005 06/10/2005
07/01/2005

and shall include an original version and two copies thereof, each numbered sequentially and with citations, and one copy on plain white paper without numbering or citations. Counsel are advised that the Court will rely primarily upon the Manual of Model Jury Instructions for the Ninth Circuit in preparation of final instructions for submission to the jury. Counsel are advised that this case is one of several cases set for the week described below. Counsel must be prepared to commence trial as scheduled, but it must be understood that the trial may have to be continued. The Clerk should be contacted as the trial date approaches for further information regarding the calendar. Pretrial and trial schedule are set as follows: Bench Trial is set for 1/17/2006 09:30 AM before John C Coughenour. Pretrial Order due by 1/6/2006; Pleading amendment/3rd pty action due by 10/7/2005; Trial briefs to be submitted by 1/12/2006; (JM, ) Modified on 5/25/2005 (ECS, ). (Entered: 05/24/2005)
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge John C Coughenour - minute entry #21 was entered in error and is stricken. . (JM, ) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
22 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT OBERTO SAUSAGE COMPANY, SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE by parties. (Olson, Kathryn) (Entered: 06/08/2005)
23 PRAECIPE to attach document ([Proposed] CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL) re 22 Stipulation by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Olson, Kathryn) (Entered: 06/08/2005)
24 STIPULATION AND ORDER for Entry of Judgment Against Defendant Oberto Sausage Company; Satisfaction of Judgment and Dismissal with Prejudice. Judgment is entered against Defendant in the sum of $350,000.00; judgment has been fully satisfied. All the claims of Plaintiff and Plaintiffs in Intervention against the Defendant are hereby Dismised with Prejudice by Judge John C Coughenour. (LMS, ) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
25 CONSENT DECREE by Judge John C Coughenour. (LMS, ) (Entered: 07/01/2005)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

07/04/2006 19:33:13

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: peters

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:05-cv-00025-JCC

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

0.32

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?546771723957857-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - July 2005

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement07-05.html

EEOC v. Oberto Sausage Co. No. CV05-25C (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2005)
The Seattle District Office filed this Title VII suit alleging that defendant, a leading national manufacturer of processed meat snacks, failed to accommodate the religious beliefs of Muslim packers in its Kent, Washington plant and discharged them based on religion. In spring 2002 defendant hired the Muslim packers, all Somalian with limited English skills, for the day shift (7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.). The Somali employees took 2- to 5-minute breaks throughout the workday for some of the five Muslim daily prayers without incident. Before the month of Ramadan began in 2003, the company announced that it was switching to a 12-hour day shift (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). The Somali employees (and a translator) met with supervisors to request a few (3-5) minutes off to pray and break their fast at sunset during the month of Ramadan. Defendant refused, even though the employees agreed to have the time taken out of their regular breaks or to clock out for the short time period involved. Defendant proposed the option of transferring the Somali employees to other shifts during Ramadan, but it was not clear whether there would be openings on the other shifts and whether the employees would be able to return to their regular shift. After Ramadan began, the Somali employees took 2- to 4-minute breaks each day at sunset. Defendant warned and then terminated them, even though the breaks did not affect production.
Under the 5-year consent decree resolving this case, defendants will pay six claimants a total of $362,000 in monetary relief (which includes $350,000 accepted in response to a Rule 68 offer of judgment). Defendant is enjoined from engaging in religious discrimination and will not retaliate as defined in Title VII. Defendant will provide an interpreter when communicating to Somali-speaking employees about personnel related issues.

1 of 1

5/29/2007 3:12 PM