Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-PAL

j Document 1

-Filed 09/30/2003

Page 1 of 6

fiLED _RECEIVEIl
1 3~~Xl r~R?c~~~t~~,4g~~ 15355-3E~~OEB~I-H"O;EsLcIP;,vREOT\JHESGH[CC~O ~~

2 5~ORf~f~~~SSION 100) SEP 30 P rC. 5'6 ~ U

3 255 East Temgle Street, 4th Floor , ." \. ,"";ReT cruln

Los AngeleS~ CA 90012

cLr, 1':'- i,;,,\'OF HEW,]!\

4 Telephone: 213) 894-1053

,,,, ,~

5 FacsImile: ( 13) 894-1301

_ ,,_--+~ _DEPUTY
01,

Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 7

8

UNITED STATES mSTRWT C.OTTRT

9

DISTRICT

CV -S-03-l230-KJD-RJJ

10

11 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

12 Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14 SUN CAB COMPANY, INC., d/b/a
15 NELLIS CAB COMPANY

COMPLAINT • CIVIL RIGHTS • EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
(42 U.S.c. §§ 2000e, et seq.) JURY TRIAL DEMAND

16

Defendant.

17

NATURE OF THE ACTION

18

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

19 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the

20 basis of National Origin and to provide appropriate relief to Hassan Bashir ("Mr.

21 Bashir") and a class of similarly situated persons. Jurisdiction of this Court is

22 invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451,1331,1337,1343 and 1345. Plaintiff

23 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") alleges that

24 Mr. Hassan Bashir and a class of similarly situated persons applied for and were

25 qualified for the position (taxi driver) with Defendant, Sun Cab Company,

26 Incorporated, d/b/a Nellis Cab Company ("Defendant Employer"), yet were

27 repeatedly denied and refused employment by Defendant Employer because of

28 their national origin (Ethiopian).
)

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-PAL Document 1 Filed 09/30/2003 Page 2 of 6

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

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

3 1331,1337,1343 and 1345.

4

2. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1)

5 and (3)ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

6 2000e-5(f)( 1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of

7 1991,42 U.S.c. § 1981a.

8

3. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now

9 being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the

10 District of Nevada.

II

PARTIES

12

4. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment OppOitunity Commission (the

13 "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

14 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly

15 authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)( I) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c.

16 § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

17

5. At all relevant times alleged herein, Defendant Employer, a Nevada

18 corporation, has continuously been doing business within Clark County, State of

19 Nevada and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

20

6. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an

21 employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of

22 Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) ofTitie VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

23

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

24

7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Mr.

25 Bashir filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by

26 Defendant Employer. The Commission has issued a Letter of Determination

27 finding that Mr. Bashir and a class of similarly situated persons were subjected to

28 unlawful employment discrimination based upon their national origin (Ethiopian)

-2-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-PAL Document 1 Filed 09/30/2003 Page 3 of 6

1 in violation of Title VII. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit

2 have been fulfilled.

3

8. The Commission alleges that, since at least on or about 2002,

4 Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Las

5 Vegas, Nevada locations in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §

6 2000e-2(a) by subjecting Mr. Bashir and a class of similarly situated persons to

7 employment discrimination based upon their national origin (Ethiopian).

8 Specifically, Defendant Employer repeatedly failed and refused to hire Mr. Bashir

9 and a class of similarly situated and qualified individuals as taxi drivers, because

10 of their national origin.

11

9. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive

12 Mr. Bashir and a class of similarly situated persons of equal employment

13 opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants for

14 employment, because of their national origin (Ethiopian) under Section 703(a) of

15 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

16

10. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendant,

17 Mr. Bashir and a class of similarly situated persons suffered a loss of earnings

18 and other pecuniary losses in an amount according to proof.

19

11. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were

20 intentional.

21

12. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done

22 with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights ofMr.

23 Bashir and a class of similarly situated persons.

24

13. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendant

25 Employer, Mr. Bashir and a class of similarly situated persons have suffered

26 emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation

27 and damages, according to proof.

28 III

-3-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-PAL Document 1 Filed 09/30/2003 Page 4 of 6

I

14. Since at least 2002, Defendant has failed, in violation of Section

2 709(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c), to make and preserve records relevant

3 to the determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are

4 being committed.

5

6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

7

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

8

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its

9 officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation

10 with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the

II basis of national origin.

12

B. Grant a mandatory injunction requiring Defendant Employer to hire

13 Mr. Bashir and a class of similarly situated persons, as the Court deems necessary

14 and proper in the public interest and to make Mr. Bashir and a class of similarly

IS situated persons whole.

16

C. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies,

17 practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all

18 applicants regardless of national origin and which will eradicate the effects of its

19 past and present unlawful employment practices.

20

D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Mr. Bashir and a class of

21 similarly situated persons by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment

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

23 necessary, including rightful place hiring, to eradicate the effects of its unlawful

24 employment practices, including, but not limited to, discrimination on the basis of

25 national origin.

26

E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Mr. Bashir and a class of

27 similarly situated persons by providing compensation for past and future

28 III

-4-

- Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-PAL

Document 1

Filed 09/30/2003

Page 5 of 6

I pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described

2 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

3

F. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Mr. Bashir and a class of

4 similarly situated persons by providing compensation for past and future non-

5 pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above,

6 including, but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of

7 enjoyment oflife, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

8

G. Order Defendant Employer to pay Mr. Bashir and a class of similarly

9 situated persons punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct based

10 upon the facts above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

II

H. Order Defendant to make and preserve all records, in accordance

12 with the provisions of Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

13 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(c), relevant to the determination of whether unlawful

14 employment practices have been or are bing committed.

15

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

16 the public interest.

17

J. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

18 III

19 III

20 III

21 III

22 III

23 III

24 III

25 III

26 III

27 III

28 III

-5-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-PAL Document 1 Filed 09/30/2003 Page 6 of 6

1

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2

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

3 complaint.

4

Respectfully submitted,

5

Eric S. Dreiband

General Counsel

6

James Lee

7

Deputy General Counsel

8 9 10 11 12 13 Date: September 29, 2003 14 15

Gwendolyn Reams, Esquire Associate General Counsel

EOUALEMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Anna Y. Park Re ional Attorney

, Gregory-McC!' '.. -.,,, ,\

on, Trial Attorney

y.. Vi_-"'-"'0'" \ . '

" Aiiilill Y.:Park'; ,

Regljma1 Attorney

Attotney~ for p\arptiff

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-

 
 Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 20 Filed 06/15/2004 Page 1 of 2

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

* * *

9 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
10 Plaintiff,
II vs.
12 SUN CAB COMPANY, INC., d/b/a!
13 NELLIS CAB COMPANY,
14 Defendant.
15

)

)

)

)

CV -S-03-1230-KJD-(RJJ)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

)

)

)

)

)

16

This matter came before the undersigned Magistrate Judge on Defendants' Motion to

17 Compel attendance at deposition (#13) and Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (#15). The

18 Court has considered the Motion to Compel (#13), Plaintiff's Opposition (#14). Plaintiff's

19 Motion (#15), Defendant's Reply and Opposition (#16) and Plaintiff's Reply.

20

Defendant seeks to depose three employees of Equal Employment Opportunity

21 Commission (the Commission) including the District Director, regarding the Commission's

22 investigation, decision and efforts of conciliation regarding claims of discrimination madc

23 against the Defendant. The Defendant contends that conciliation is relevant and discoverable as

24 a good faith effort is a prerequisite to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Defendant seeks the

25 factual predicate for the letter of determination in an attempt to counteract its value If admitted at

26 trial.

27

The deposition of the employees will not be allowed regarding the investigation that led

28 to the letter of determination being issued. The Commission has agreed not to introduce the

-) ( )
CL

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 20 Filed 06/15/2004 Page 2 of 2

Letter of Determination at trial, thus the investigation that led up to it is not relevant. Further

2 even if it were relevant, the Commission and the employees themselves admit that none of the

3 individuals subpoenaed have a personal recollection of the factual events that gave rise to

4 Commission filing suit in this case or the issuance of the letter of determination, which is

5 independent of the documents already provided. Decl. of Perry, Kite, Nelson, attached to

6 Motion for Protective Order (#15). Also, the Commission has agreed to redact the Investigator's

7 Memorandum and disclose all factual information to the Defendant. Reply at p. 2.

8

The Depositions will not be allowed regarding the efforts at conciliation as the degree of

9 conciliation is not ajurisdictional prerequisite. Although the Commission must make an effort to

IO conciliate prior to filing suit, the Ninth Circuit has not held the adequacy of the effort IS

II jurisdictional. E.E.O.C. v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605, 608 (9th Cir. 1982). Therelorc.

12 evidence beyond that conciliation was attempted does not remove the power of the court to hear

13 the case. Further, none of the subpoenaed employees cun'ently has an independent recollection

14 of the events. Decl. of Perry, Kite, Nelson, attached to Motion for Protective Order (# 15).

15 Therefore, their testimony would be unlikely to lead to admissible information.

16

ORDER

17

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,

18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendant's Motion to Compel (#13) is DENIED.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (#15) is GRANTED.

20

~~ DATED this

of June, 2004.

21 22

R~~J;;:

23

United States Magistrate Judge

24

25

26

28 -2 -

 
 Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 43 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 1 of 5

1

, I

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

10 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
11 Plaintiff:
12 v.
13 , SUN CAB COMPANY, INC., d/b/a
14 NELLIS CAB COMPANY,

Case No. CV-S-03-1230-KJD-RTJ
ORDER

IS

Defendant.

16

17

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#27).

.,8 Defendant ("NELLIS") filed a response in opposition (#28) to which Plaintiff replied (#30).

:.9 1. Facts and Pro~:edural History

20

On or about October 10,2002" Hassan Bashir filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal

21 Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging that Defendant had fa:iled to hire him

22 because of his Ethiopian national origin. The EEOC began an investigation, and Defendant

23 cooperated with the EEOC's requests for information. On August 7, 2003, the EEOC conducted on-

LA site interviews of NELLIS management and employees. Following the interviews, the EEOC

25 demanded more information regarding the national origin and race of NELLIS employees ,mdjob

26 applicants.

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 43 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 2 of 5

1

On September 11,2003, the EEOC issued its Letter of Determination finding reasonahile

2 I cause to believe that violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") had
!
3 occurred. Specifically, the letter found reasonable cause to lbelieve that Hassan Bashir had not been

4 hired due to his national origin and that other similarly situated Ethiopians had been discriminated

5 against. The letter also mentioned that NELLIS was invited to resolve the matter tbroLlgh

6 conciliatJon.

7

On September 16,2003, another letter was sent inviting NELLIS to conciliate the matter

8 without resulting to litigation. The letter contained terms of a proposed settlement including a

9 monetary figure for damages, injuncbve relief, and requiring NELLIS to provide training :)Ill Tide VII

10 to employees. NELLIS responded on September 22,2003 by letter agreeing to some terms and 11 : proposing new or altered terms, and requesting additional information regarding th~ c1airr for

12 monetary damages. On September 23, 2003, NELLIS' counsel spoke with EEOC officials who

13 explained that the monetary damages were punitive in nature rather than compensatory. By letler the

14 same day, the EEOC confirmed the details of the phone conversation, requested a response to the

15 proposed monetary damages, and required a response by the end of the day on September 24, 2003.

16 The letter also invited a counter-offer on the monetary damages. The letter notified NELLIS that

[7 I failure to respond or provide a counter-offer by the deadline would result in the end of conciliation

',8 I and forwarding of the matter to the Legal Unit for possible litigation. I

:,9

Mr. Winner, counsel for NELLIS, was dissatisfied with the EEOC's explanation for requiring

20 punitive damages. NELLIS did not respond to the September 23rd letter by the deadline. The EEOC

21 filed the present action on September 30,2003. On November 19,2004, Plaintiff filed the present

22 motion seeking to dismiss any defense Defendant may have based on a failure to conciliate.'

'Title VII commits the decision of whether to stay proceedings ft)f further effOlis to conciliate .~t,'. 4 or to dismiss the action to the sound discretion of the trial court. See EEOC v. Asp1ur~j1}_~~~ree.Expert
Co., 340 F.3d 1256, 1259 n.1 (11th Cir. 2003)(citing 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(1); I~EOCx,-Sear~. 2.5 Roebuck and Cc~" 650 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1981)). A district court would prefer a defense bm,ed upon
an alleged failur~: of the EEOC to conciliate to be made by a motion to dismiss early in the litigation. 26 Since the issue of conciliation is jurisdictional and because a court has the option to stay proceedings,
2

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 43 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 3 of 5

1 II. Standard fo( Summary Judgment

2

Summary judgment may be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to intenogatories,

3 and admi ssions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

4 material fact and that the moving pany is entitled to a judgment as a matter oflaw. .s..s:e Fed. It Civ.

5 P. 56(c); see als~2 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,322 (1986). The moving patty bears the

6 initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue ofrnaterial fact. See Celotex;" 477 US. at

7 323. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts demonstrating a

8 ! genuine factual issue for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Cor~, 475 US. 574,

9 587 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

10

All justifiable inferences must be viewed in the light must favorable to the nonmoving party.

11 See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. However, the nonmoving party may not rest upon the mere

12 allegations or denials of his or her pleadings, but he or she must produce specific facts, by affidavit

13 or other evidentiary materials provided by Rule 56(e), showing there is a genuine issue £~)r triaL See

14 Anderson v. Lib_erty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). The court need only resolve f~Lctual

15 ,, issues of controversy in favor of the non-moving party where the facts specifically averrec. by:that
i
16 party contradict facts specifically avelTed by the movant. Se~ Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fe,;L!l., 4~n

.~ 7 U.S. 8n, 888 (1990); see also Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337,345

18 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating that conclusory or speCUlative testimony is insufficient to rai se a genui ne

:9 issue Off:lct to defeat summary judgment).

•"• 0

Summary judgment shall be entered "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient

•"•1 to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that pa1y will

bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Summary judgment shall not be granted
u.s:. L"3 if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See AnderS01!, 477 at 248.

" 4 ,,",

2.5

26 waiting until the deadline for dispositive motions or for trial is disfavored.

3

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 43 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 4 of 5

1 III. Analysis

2

Several conditions precedent must be satisfied before the EEOC may bring suit. ~:.~e I~~OC

3 v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1982). A charge of unlawful employtl1 ent pmctice

4 must be med with the EEOC. See 42. U.S.c. § 2000e-5(b); .Pierce Pac1;ing, 669 F.2d at 607.. The

5 EEOC must then notify the alleged wrongdoer, conduct an investigation and detemlini~ w'leth~r

6 reasonable cause exists to believe the charge. See id. If reasonable cause is found, the EEOC must

7 "endeavor to eliminate" the practices through informal methods including conciliation. 15;(. Ifthe

8 EEOC determines that further conciliation efforts would be futile or nonproductive, it must notify the

9 employer in writing. See id. at 607. "Only after the preceding steps have been exhausted, and the

10 [EEOC] is unable to reach an acceptable conciliation,. may the [EEOC] bring a civil action." hI:.; 42

II U.S.c. § 2000e··5(f)(I).

12

PI aintiff has moved for summary judgment asking the Court to find that the la'w of the case

13 doctrine has resolved the jurisdictional issue of conciliation and that th~~ EEOC's conciliation efforts

14 satisfied the jurisdictional requirements. Because the Court finds that the EEOC satisfied the

15 • jurisdictional requirements, it is not necessary to address the law of the case argument. In opposition
,
:.6 j to Plaintiffs motion, Defendant mainly seeks to show that Plaintiffs efforts at conciliation were not

:7 adequate. Primarily, Defendant relies on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals case I~EQC v.,

I 8 Asplundh Tree t:xpert Co., 340 F.3d 1256 (11 th Cir. 2003).

19

In Asplupdh, the court found fault with the EEOC's efforts to conciliate before filin.g sUIt. Id.

"~,IO at 1260. Primarily the court faulted the EEOC for expanding a local incident that: did not involve "~I, 1 Asplundh's employees into a nationwide case against Asplundh without explaining to Asplunclh how

it could be held liable for the actions of another entity's employees. Id. at 1259-60. The court also

"~,,', 3 criticized the EEOC for failing to respond to a request by Asplundh's newly retained counsel for

~'4
~.

additional time to respond to the proposed conciliation agreement. Id. at 1258-60. The filctuaJ

25 circumstances in the present case are different.

26

4

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 43 Filed 09/07/2005 Page 5 of 5
'.>

1

In the present case, a lengthy investigation determined that NELLIS had not hired Hassan

2 Bashir due to his national origin and that other similarly situated Ethiopians had been discriminated

3 against. This theory ofliability was provided to NELLIS in the Letter of Determination sent

4 September 11,2003. Additionally, unlike the employer's counsel in Asplundh, NELLlS" coum:el

5 was involved in the investigation from the time the Charge of Discrimination had been filed until the

6 EEOC filed suit. Also, unlike Asplundh, NELLIS never requested an extension of the conciliation

7 period and failed to respond at all to the EEOC's letter on September 23,2003 that set a d:~adhne for

8 response and requested a counter-offer. The Court finds that the EEOC made a reasonable efhrt to

9 conciliate and that NELLIS' failure to present a further counter-offer or request an extension of time

: 0 to conciliate led the EEOC to reasonably believe that conciliation was flltile. See: id! at 1259, [260.

: 1 There:fi)re, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

J2 IV. Conclusion

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary

i

14 Judgment (#27) is GRANTED.

rt~

15

DATED this __ I day of September 2005.

16

17

18

Kent J. Dawson

United States District Judge

19

-~t.'. O

~Il -t..

~12 -t..

~13 -t..

-~t..'4

L~.'5

~L.'6

5

 
 Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 45 Filed 03/09/2006 Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

9 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
10 Plaintiff,
11 v.
12 SUN CAB COMPANY, INC. d/b/a
13 NELLIS CAB COMPANY,

Case No. 2:03-CV-1230-KJD-RJJ ORDER

14

Defendant.

15

16

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#39). Plaintiff

17 filed a response in opposition (#41) to which Defendant replied (#42).

18 I. Facts and Analysis

19

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleges that Defendant

20 (“Nellis Cab”) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) by failing to hire a

21 class of similarly situated individuals because of their national origin, Ethiopian. Defendant has

22 moved for summary judgment alleging that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case as to each

23 individual, and that Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for

24 its failure to hire the individuals is a pretext for discriminatory intent.

25

Despite Defendant’s contentions, Plaintiff has adequately established the prima facie case.

26 The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that “[t]he requisite degree of proof necessary to

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 45 Filed 03/09/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 establish a prima facie case for Title VII...claims on summary judgment is minimal and does not 2 even need rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.” Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co. LLC,

3 413 F.3d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 2005)(citing Aragon v. Rep. Silver State Disposal, 292 F.3d 654, 659-

4 60 (9th Cir. 2002); Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1994)). The most troubling

5 issue raised by Defendant is the claim of Derbew Negash who never formally applied for a job after

6 being told that he would have to quit his existing employment before being considered for

7 employment by Nellis Cab.

8

Defendant argues that the “futile gesture doctrine”1 does not apply under the reasoning of Fox

9 v. Baltimore City Police Dep’t, 201 F.3d 526, 534-35 (4th Cir. 2000). In Fox, the appellate court

10 denied police officers who had not placed their name on a waiting list to join armed forces reserve

11 units the use of the futile gesture doctrine, because the evidence showed that some officers were

12 selected off the waiting list and because the nature of the right at issue did not involve humiliation or

13 rejection. See id. Looking at the facts in this case in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, there is

14 evidence to show that non-Ethiopian cab drivers were hired while still working for other companies.

15 However, Negash was told that he must quit his existing employment before being considered for

16 hire. Thus, Negash’s submission of an application may have been futile. Furthermore, the right at

17 issue in the present case is more important than the right at issue in Fox. Negash had the right to be

18 considered for employment without consideration of his national origin. The Fourth Circuit

19 approves of application of the futile gesture doctrine in cases where there is “an unequal power

20 dynamic” or “a climate of fear, prejudice, or antagonism discouraging potential applicants from

21 submitting an application.” Id. at 535. A jury could find from the facts as alleged by Plaintiff a

22 climate of prejudice discouraging potential applicants from submitting an application. Therefore, the

23

24

1In Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 365-66 (1977), the Supreme Court

allowed minority bus drivers who had not actually applied for more favorable positions to make 25 claims for damages because it reasoned that one who fails to submit in an application in a futile

gesture is “as much a victim of discrimination as is he who goes through the motions of submitting 26 an application.”

2

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 45 Filed 03/09/2006 Page 3 of 3

1 Court will allow Negash’s claim to go forward, though he will bear “the not always easy burden of

2 proving that he would have applied for the job had it not been for [the discriminatory] practices.”

3 Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 368.

4

Furthermore, in addition to establishing the prima facie case, Plaintiff has adequately met its

5 burden in showing pretext using circumstantial evidence. In fact, Plaintiff has offered statistical

6 evidence showing an affirmative case that the employer may be biased and Plaintiff has shown

7 pretext negatively by showing that some of the employer’s proffered explanations are “unworthy of

8 credence.” Coghlan, 413 F.3d at 1095. Plaintiff’s evidence is specific and substantial enough to

9 overcome Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See id. at 1096.

10

Finally, Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s statistical evidence are denied. Though this case

11 may be prime for a showdown of dueling experts, the shortcomings complained of by Defendant are

12 not material, and at best are fodder for argument by counsel or Defendant’s expert. Particularly, the

13 complaint that Plaintiff’s experts did not consider the applicant pool is eviscerated by the fact that

14 Defendants did not preserve the applications. See, e.g., Lewis v. Bloomsburg Mills, Inc., 773 F.2d

15 561 (4th Cir. 1986)(applicant flow data need not be used where employer failed to keep

16 applications). The Court finds that Plaintiff has raised genuine issues of material fact sufficient to

17 defeat summary judgment. Therefore, the Court must deny Defendant’ s motion.

18 II. Conclusion

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

20 (#39) is DENIED;

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections (#41) are DENIED as moot.

22

DATED this 9th day of March 2006.

23

24

25

_____________________________

Kent J. Dawson

26

United States District Judge

3

 
 Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 1 of 15

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 2 of 15

1 the Commission's complaint, filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

2 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). This Consent Decree resolves

3 all issues raised by the EEOC in the present lawsuit with regard to Nellis Cab's

4 recruiting, screening, interviewing, rejecting, selecting and/or hiring of individuals

5 for taxi-driver positions.

6

II.

7

PURPOSES AND SCOPE OF THE CONSENT DECREE

8

A. The parties to this Consent Decree ("Decree") are EEOC and Nellis

9 Cab. The scope of this Decree includes Nellis Cab's operations in the Las Vegas

10 Metropolitan Area in the State of Nevada. This Decree shall be binding on and

11 enforceable against Nellis Cab and its officers, directors, agents, successors and

12 assigns.

13

B. The parties have entered into this Decree for the following purposes:

14

1. To provide appropriate relief to the Charging Party and

15

claimants;

16

2. To ensure that Nellis Cab's employment practices comply with

17

federal law;

18

3. To avoid expensive and protracted costs incident to this

19

litigation; and

20

4. To ensure equal employment opportunity in the recruiting, interviewing,

21 screening, selecting, and hiring of individuals for the position of drivers with Nellis

22 Cab.

23

C.

This Agreement shall not be construed as an admission that Nellis Cab

24 has violated the law.

25

III.

26

RELEASE OF CLAIMS

27

A. This Decree fully and completely resolves all issues, claims and

28 allegations by the EEOC against Nellis Cab that are raised in the Complaint filed in

-2-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 3 of 15

1 this action in the United States District Court, District ofNevada on September 30,

2 2003, captioned U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sun Cab

3 Company, Inc. d/b/a Nellis Cab Company, Case No. CV S-03-1230KJD(GWF)(the

4 "Complaint") relating to defendant's hiring practices covering the time period from

5 January 1, 2002 to the entry of this Consent Decree.

6

B. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude the Commission

7 from bringing suit to enforce this Decree in the event that any party hereto fails to

8 perform the promises and representations contained herein.

9

C. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to limit or reduce Nellis Cab's

10 obligation to comply fully with Title VII or any other federal employment statute.

11

D. This Decree in no way affects the EEOC's right to bring, process,

12 investigate or litigate other charges that may be in existence or may later arise

13 against Nellis Cab in accordance with standard EEOC procedures.

14

IV.

15

JURISDICTION

16

A. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of

17 this lawsuit. The Complaint asserts claims that, if proven, would authorize the

18 Court to grant the equitable relief set forth in this Decree. The terms and

19 provisions ofthis Decree are fair, reasonable and just. This Decree conforms

20 with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII and is not in derogation

21 of the rights or privileges of any person.

22

B. The Court shall retain jurisdiction ofthis action during the duration

23 of the Decree for the purposes of entering all orders, judgments and decrees that

24 may be necessary to implement the relief provided herein.

25

v.

26

EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF DECREE

27

A. The provisions and agreements contained herein are effective

28 immediately upon the date which this Decree is entered by the Court ("the Effective

-3-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 4 of 15

1 Date").

2

B. The duration of this Consent Decree shall be three (3) years from the

3 date of entry by the Court. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action during

4 the period of this Consent Decree.

5

VI.

6

MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY

7

A. This Decree constitutes the complete understanding ofthe parties with

8 respect to the matters contained herein. No waiver, modification or amendment of

9 any provision of this Decree will be effective unless made in writing and signed by

10 an authorized representative of each of the parties.

11

B. If one or more provisions of the Decree are rendered unlawful or

12 unenforceable, the parties shall make good faith efforts to agree upon appropriate

13 amendments to this Decree in order to effectuate the purposes ofthe Decree. In any

14 event, the remaining provisions will remain in full force and effect unless the

15 purposes of the Decree cannot, despite the parties' best efforts, be achieved.

16

VII.

17

COMPLIANCE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

18

A. The parties expressly agree that ifthe Commission has reason to believe

19 that Nellis Cab has failed to comply with any provision of this Consent Decree, the

20 Commission may file a motion before this Court to enforce the Decree. Prior to

21 initiating such action, the Commission will notify Nellis Cab or its legal counsel of

22 record, in writing, of the nature of the dispute. This notice shall specify the

23 particular provision(s) that the Commission believes has/have been breached.

24 Absent a showing by either party that the delay will cause irreparable harm, Nellis

25 Cab shall have thirty (30) days to attempt to resolve or cure the breach.

26

B. The parties agree to cooperate with each other and use their best efforts

27 to resolve any dispute referenced in the EEOC notice.

28

c. After thirty days have passed with no resolution or agreement to extend

-4-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 5 of 15

1 the time further, the Commission may petition this Court for resolution of the

2 dispute, seeking all available relief, including an extension ofthe term ofthe Decree

3 for such period of time as Nellis Cab is shown to be in breach of the Decree,

4 attorneys fees, costs, and other relief the Court deems appropriate.

5

VIII.

6

MONETARY RELIEF

7

Nellis Cab, in settlement of this dispute, shall pay $50,000 in full resolution

8 of this case. The EEOC shall have the sole discretion on the monetary distribution

9 of the money to the Charging Party and the identified claimants.

10

A. Compensatory Damages

11

Nellis Cab shall also pay a total of$ 50,000.00 as compensatory damages to

12 Charging Party and the identified claimants. Within ten business days after the

13 Effective Date, Nellis Cab shall mail, via certified mail, checks payable to the

14 Charging Party and claimants, to be apportioned as notified by the Commission.

15

B. As the parties agree that the $50,000.00 total payment represents

16 damages for compensatory damages under Title VII, Nellis Cab is not required to

17 make any employer contributions, except that it must issue 1099 forms or the

18 equivalent as required by law for the payment made to each claimant.

19

C. A copy of the checks and accompanying transmittal papers shall be

20 contemporaneously forwarded to the EEOC c/o Anna Park Regional Attorney 255

21 East Temple Street 4th Floor in Los Angeles, CA 90012.

22

IX.

23

GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

24

A. Non-Discrimination

25

1. Nellis Cab shall be enjoined at any of its locations from engaging in

26 national origin discrimination with regard to recruiting, interviewing, selecting, and

27 hiring individuals to fill taxi-driver positions.

28

Nellis Cab, its officers, agents, management (including all supervisory

-5-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 6 of 15

1 employees), successors, assigns, and all those in active concert or participation with

2 them, or any of them, shall also be enjoined from engaging in, implementing or

3 permitting any action, policy or practice with the purpose of retaliating against any

4 current or former employee or applicant ofNellis Cab, or either ofthem, because he

5 or she has in the past, or during the term of this Decree: (a) opposed any practice

6 made unlawful under Title VII; (b) filed a charge of discrimination alleging such

7 practice; (c) testified or participated in any manner in any investigation (including

8 without limitation, any internal investigation undertaken by Nellis Cab), proceeding

9 in connection with this case and/or relating to any claim of a Title VII violation; (d)

10 was identified as a possible witness or claimant in this action; (e) asserted any rights

11 under this Decree; or (f) sought and/or received any relief in accordance with this

12 Decree.

13

B. Posting

14

Within ten business days after the Effective Date and throughout the term of

15 this Decree, Nellis Cab shall post notice (attached as Exhibit "A") of the terms of

16 this Decree at its location covered by this Decree.

17

C. Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant

18

1. Within thirty days after the Effective Date, Nellis Cab shall retain an

19

Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant ("Monitor") with

20

demonstrated experience in the area ofemploymentdiscrimination and

21

recruitment/hiring issues, to implement and monitor Nellis Cab's

22

compliance with Title VII and the provisions of this Decree. The

23

Monitor shall be subject to the EEOC's approval, which shall not be

24

unreasonably withheld. If the EEOC does not approve Nellis Cab's

25

proposed Monitor, the EEOC shall provide Nellis Cab with a list of at

26

least three suggested candidates acceptable to the EEOC. Nellis Cab

27

shall bear all costs associated with the selection and retention of the

28

Monitor and the performance of his/her/its duties. The Monitor's

-6-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 7 of 15

1

responsibilities shall include:

2

a. developing procedures in recruiting, screening, interviewing,

3

selecting, rejecting and hiring individuals without regard to

4

national origin in compliance with Title VII;

5

b. creating, applying, and implementing its new objective hiring

6

criteria and reporting/auditing procedures to carry out Nellis Cab's

7

obligations under this Decree;

8

c. training managerial/supervisory staffoftheir responsibilities with

9

respect to recruiting and hiring under Title VII;

10

d. ensuring that all reports required by this Decree are accurately

11

compiled and timely submitted; and

12

e. ensuring compliance with the terms of this Decree.

13

D. Revision of Policies Concerning Recruitment/Hiring

14

1. With the assistance of the Monitor, Nellis Cab shall revise its written

15 policies and procedures on discrimination, retaliation, recruitment and hiring. A

16 copy shall be sent to the EEOC within sixty days after the Effective Date. The

17 revised policies and procedures shall include:

18

a. A clear objective hiring and selection criteria which expressly

19

prohibits hiring decisions on the basis ofrace, color, national origin, sex, age,

20

disability, creed/religion, or any other protected category;

21

b. A written employee referral policy that does not discriminate on

22

the basis of national origin or any other protected category; and

23

c. Procedures for the reporting/auditing requirements as described

24

in Section X of this Decree.

25

2. The revised policies and procedures shall immediately be distributed to all

26 of Nellis Cab's employees, including management and/or supervisory staff, and

27 shall be included in any relevant policy or employee manuals distributed to

28 employees by Nellis Cab.

-7-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 8 of 15

1

3. Nellis Cab shall collect acknowledgments from each employee who

2 receives the revised policy. During the term ofthis Decree, Nellis Cab shall provide

3 the EEOC with written notice in the event that it revises its non-discriminatory hiring

4 and recruiting criteria within ten days after implementation of any such revision by

5 Nellis Cab.

6

4. Throughout the term ofthis Decree, Nellis Cab shall also post the revised

7 policy in a place that is conspicuous and accessible to all employees at each of its

8 locations covered by this Decree in a legible font that is a minimum of 15 points in

9 SIZe.

10 E. Recruiting and Hiring

11

1. Nellis Cab shall endeavor to increase diversity in the workforce. In

12

pursuing this endeavor, Nellis Cab shall engage in the following

13

activities:

14

a. Implement a hiring procedure that does not rely solely on word-

15

of-mouth for publicizing openings that includes a systematic,

16

predetermined hiring procedure that IS disclosed to all

17

applicants to ensure that applicants are evaluated based upon

18

their qualifications and interest in the open positions and not on

19

national origin;

20

b. Provide written advertisements of all cab driver job openings;

21

c. Commit to equal employment opportunity regardless of

22

national origin to each applicant who applies for a position with

23

Nellis Cab; and

24

d. Any other procedures recommended by the EEO Monitor.

25 F. Training

26

Within sixty days after the Effective Date or thirty days after hiring the

27 Monitor, whichever is later, all ofNellis Cab's managerial/supervisory employees

28 shall be required to attend a training program of at least four hours with regard to

-8-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 9 of 15

1 compliance under Title VII. The training shall be mandatory.

2

1. All employees' training shall include coverage ofthe subjects of equal

3

employment opportunity rights and responsibilities, including but not limited

4

to Title VII's prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of national

5

origin and reaffirms Nellis Cab's commitmentto non-discriminatory hiring in

6

the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area. The training shall also include proper

7

hiring, recruiting, screening practices to comply with Title VII. Further, any

8

employee whose job duties include investigating or monitoring hiring

9

practices shall have training on proper hiring, recruiting and screen practices

10

specifically.

11

2. For the remainder of the term of this Decree, all new managerial

12

employees and all employees recently promoted from a staff/hourly to a

13

managerial position shall receive the managerial employee training, as

14

appropriate, within thirty days of hire or promotion.

15

3. After the initial training as specified above, all managerial employees

16

shall receive training annually thereafter for the remainder ofthe term ofthis

17

Decree.

18

4. Within forty-five days after the Effective Date or thirty days after

19

hiring the Monitor, whichever is later, Nellis Cab shall submit to the EEOC

20

a description of the training to be provided and an outline of the curriculum

21

developed for the trainees. Nellis Cab shall give the EEOC a minimum often

22

business days' advance written notice to the EEOC of the date, time and

23

location of each training program provided and agrees that a EEOC

24

representative may attend any such training program.

25 Ill

26 Ill

27 Ill

28 Ill

-9-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 10 of 15

1

X.

2

RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING

3

A. Record-Keeping

4

1. Nellis Cab shall submit annual EE0-1 reports pursuant to applicable law,

5 and shall maintain supporting documentation. Nellis Cab shall maintain employment

6 applications and resumes as required by applicable law and under the terms of this

7 Decree, which ever is longer.

8

2. As used herein, records and documents shall mean and include all

9 correspondence, computer records, memoranda, reports, notes, lists, letters,

10 applications, resumes, advertisements and brochures that pertain to and are used by

11 Nellis Cab to recruit, interview, screen, select, and to hire individuals to fill various

12 driver positions for the term of this Consent Decree.

13

B. Reporting

14

1. Nellis Cab shall work with the Monitor to establish an auditing

15

procedure that provides for the monitoring ofjob applicant flow for the

16

position of taxi-driver.

17

2. Within sixty days of the Effective Date, Nellis Cab shall conduct an

18

annual audit ofthe previous 12 month period (the "Audit Period") and

19

submit a written report (the "Audit Report") to the EEOC. The Audit

20

Report shall:

21

22

a. Identify the newly hired taxi-drivers by national origin, ifknown,

23

and date ofhire by use ofa form as set forth in Section X (B)(4);

24

b. Identify the applicants who applied for the taxi-driver position

25

by use of a form as set forth in Section X (B)(4);

26

c. Identify the applicants who were interviewed for taxi-driver

27

position;

28

d. Identify the applicants who were offered taxi-driver positions

-10-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 11 of 15

1

but declined the employment offer;

2

e. List the number of positions available for each hiring done by

3

Nellis Cab;

4

f. Give the reason for not hiring a individual ofEthiopian descent,

5

ifthe individual's Ethiopian descent is known, ifany such person

6

was not hired during the term ofthe Decree;

7

g. Confirm that the Notice is posted during the Audit Period; and

8

h. Give a synopsis of the recruitment efforts by Nellis Cab.

9

3.

Nellis Cab will request voluntary disclosure of national origin data

10 from applicants for taxi-driver positions for the limited purpose of assembling data

11 and submitting the Audit Report to the EEOC as provided herein. The parties agree

12 that Nellis Cab's submission of incomplete data to the EEOC in any Audit Report,

13 due to withholding of such data by any applicant for taxi-driver positions, shall not

14 constitute a violation of this Decree.

15

4.

Nellis Cab shall maintain the underlying documents, including all

16 notes applications, recruitment, and any other documents utilized for the Audit

17 Reports. The EEOC shall have the right to inspect any underlying documents and

18 shall give thirty (30) days notice prior to inspecting the underlying documents.

19

5.

In addition to the Audit Report to the EEOC specified above, Nellis

20 Cab shall provide, within ninety days after the Effective Date, to the EEOC an initial

21 report which contains:

22

(a) A copy of the revised objective hiring criteria! and

23

discrimination policy;

24

(b) A summary of the procedures and auditing methods developed

25

with the Monitor for monitoring applicant flow;

26

(c) A statement confirming that the required notices pertaining to

27

this Decree and the revised discrimination and objective hiring

28

criteria have been posted;

and

-11-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 12 of 15

1

(d) A statement that the training requirements were met as set forth

2

in the Decree;

3

6. Nellis Cab shall provide a report to the EEOC detailing any changes

4 to the objective hiring criteria policies, procedures, and auditing methods for

5 monitoring applicant flow within thirty days before implementing such changes.

6

XI.

7

COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

8

OF CONSENT DECREE

9

Nellis Cab shall bear all costs associated with its administration and

10 implementation of its obligations under this Consent Decree.

11

XII.

12

COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES

13

Each party shall bear its own costs of suit and attorneys' fees. The parties

14 further agree that pursuant to Section 706(k) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k),

15 there is no "prevailing party" in this action or proceeding.

16

17

XIII.

18

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

19

A. During the term of this Consent Decree, Nellis Cab shall provide any

20 potential successor-in-interest with a copy of this Decree within a reasonable time

21 of not less than thirty days prior to the execution of any agreement for acquisition

22 or assumption of control of any or all of Nellis Cab's operations, or any other

23 material change in corporate structure, and shall simultaneously inform the EEOC

24 ofsame.

25

B.

During the term of this Decree, Nellis Cab and its successors shall

26 assure that each ofits officers, managers and supervisors is aware ofany term in this

27 Decree which is related to his/her job duties.

28

C. The parties agree to entry of this Decree and judgment subject to final

-12-

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 13 of 15

DECEMBER 12, 2006

KENT J. DAWSON

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 14 of 15
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
\\

Case 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF Document 6791 Filed 12/123/2006 Page 15 of 15

DECEMBER 12, 2006

KENT J. DAWSON

 
 CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728656243395562-L_92...

United States District Court District of Nevada (Las Vegas) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission VS Sun Cab Company, Inc., etal Assigned to: Judge Kent J. Dawson Referred to: Magistrate Judge George W Foley, Jr
Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen (Settlement) Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 09/30/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Anna Park U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012213-894-1083 Email: anna.park@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter F. Laura United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Legal Unit 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012(213) 894-1000 Fax: 213-894-1118 Email: peter.laura@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Sun Cab Company, Inc. doing business as Nellis Cab Company

represented by Jeffrey S. Judd Littler Mendelson, PC 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937 Email: jjudd@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY

1 of 8

6/12/2007 2:35 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728656243395562-L_92...

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick H. Hicks Littler Mendelson, PC 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89109 Email: phicks@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert A Winner Winner & Carson, P.C. 510 S. Eighth Street Las Vegas, Ne 89101 (702)471-1111 Fax: (702)471-0110 Email: hyh@winnercarson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/30/2003 09/30/2003 10/01/2003 10/27/2003 10/28/2003
11/06/2003 11/17/2003 12/08/2003 12/08/2003 12/10/2003 01/20/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT Copy of complaint w/jury demand obo P (Entered: 10/27/2003)
4 COMPLAINT Original complaint (see ord #3 for details). (Entered: 11/06/2003)
SUMMONS ISSUED (1) summs iss'd to P (Entered: 10/27/2003)
2 NOTICE (OTHER) Notc of referral to ENE session w/Special Ord #102 attch'd. cps dis (Entered: 10/27/2003)
3 ORDER ORD: P is to return an original signature page for the complaint forthwith. Cnsl are to snd doc w/a cover lttr to the attn of Deputy Clrk Jeff Miller. cps dis (Entered: 10/28/2003)
5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notc of appearance of cnsl for Ds. (m) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE EXECUTED as to D Sun Cab Co. obo P. (m) (Entered: 11/18/2003)
7 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Answr obo Ds. (m) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
8 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES obo Ds. (m) (cpy to KJD & RJJ) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
9 SCHEDULING ORDER ORD: An ENE session is sched for 4-7-03 @ 1:30pm before PAL. cps dis (Entered: 12/11/2003)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT disc plan & sched ord. to RJJ (Entered: 01/21/2004)

2 of 8

6/12/2007 2:35 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728656243395562-L_92...

01/22/2004 03/08/2004 03/10/2004
04/09/2004
05/10/2004 05/17/2004 05/17/2004
05/17/2004 05/19/2004 05/20/2004 05/28/2004 06/14/2004
06/15/2004 08/20/2004
08/23/2004 09/07/2004 09/21/2004 09/30/2004

10 ORDER ON STIPULATION ORD: Disc exp 6-7-04, dispo mtns due 7-7-04, jnt PTO due 8-6-04. cps dis (Entered: 01/23/2004)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT stip to extnd d'dlines. to RJJ (Entered: 03/08/2004)
11 ORDER ON STIPULATION ORD:(EXTENDED) Disc exp 7-22-04, dispo mtns due 8-23-04, jnt PTO due 9-20-04, interim stat rept due 5-21-04. cps dis (Entered: 03/11/2004)
12 MISCELLANEOUS HEARING ENE session hld 4/7/04 bfr PAL: no settlmnt was reached, case shld be returned to normal litigation track. cpys dist. (Entered: 04/09/2004)
13 MOTION TO COMPEL EMRGNCY mtn to compel attendance @ depo obo D. (f,m) (DISPO: oppo #14, reply #16, ord #20 DENIED (Entered: 05/11/2004)
14 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION Oppo to EMRGNCY mtn to compel #13 obo P. (m) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
15 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Mtn for prot ord re: depos of Kite, Nelson & Perry obo P. (m) (DISPO: oppo #16, reply #17, ord #20 GRNTD (Entered: 05/17/2004)
16 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION Reply in supt of EMRGCNY mtn to compel #13 & oppo to mtn for prot ord #15 obo D. (m) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
17 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION REPLY to oppo (#16) Mtn for protective ordr (#15) obo P (m) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
18 STATUS REPORT Interim stat rept. (cpy to KJD & RJJ) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT stip to amnd disc. to KJD (Entered: 05/28/2004)
19 ORDER ON STIPULATION ORD:(EXTENDED) Disc exp 10-20-04, dispo mtns due 11-19-04, jnt PTO due 12-20-04, interim stat rept due 8-23-04. cps dis (Entered: 06/15/2004)
20 ORDER ORD: D's mtn to compel #13 DENIED; FUR ORD: P's mtn for prot ord #15 GRNTD. cps dis (Entered: 06/15/2004)
21 MOTION IN LIMINE by Pltf to exclude the report & testimony of Nellis Cab's statistical expert Richard Singleton. (s) (DISPO: oppo #23, reply #24, ord #37 DENIED (Entered: 08/23/2004)
22 STATUS REPORT Jnt interim stat rept obo P. (m) (cpy to KJD & RJJ) (Entered: 08/25/2004)
23 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION Oppo to mtn in limine #21 obo D. (m) (Entered: 09/08/2004)
24 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION Reply in supt of mtn in limine to exclude report/testimony #21 obo P. (m) (Entered: 09/22/2004)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT 3rd stip to extnd disc. to KJD (Entered: 10/01/2004)

3 of 8

6/12/2007 2:35 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728656243395562-L_92...

10/05/2004
10/12/2004 11/19/2004
12/06/2004 12/10/2004 12/13/2004 12/21/2004 12/21/2004
01/10/2005 01/28/2005 01/28/2005 02/14/2005 03/08/2005 03/10/2005 03/15/2005
06/17/2005
07/05/2005

25 ORDER ON STIPULATION ORD: The d'dline for exprt disc is extnd'd until 40 days after Ct's ruling on P's mtn in limine #21. All other disc dates remain the same. cps dis (Entered: 10/05/2004)
26 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS for cnsl Litter Mendelson obo D. (m) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
27 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Mtn for prtl s/j obo P. (m) (DISPO: oppo #28, reply #30, objctns #31 ORD #43 GRNTD (Entered: 11/22/2004)
28 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION Oppo to mtn for prtl s/j #27 obo D. (m) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT stip/ord to amend disc plan - KJD (Entered: 12/10/2004)
29 ORDER ON STIPULATION ORD: Jnt PTO due after dispo of mtn for prtl s/j #27. cps dis (Entered: 12/14/2004)
30 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION Reply in supt of mtn for prtl s/j #27 obo P. (m) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
31 OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Objcnts to dec of Robert Winner attch'd to oppo #28 to mtn for prtl s/j #27 obo P. (m) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
32 MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF by Dft to re-open disc. (s) (DISPO: oppo #33, objctns #34, reply #35, ord #38 GRNTD (Entered: 01/11/2005)
33 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION Oppo to mtn to reopen disc #32 obo P. (m) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
34 OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Objctns to dec attch'd to mtn to reopen disc #32 obo P. (m) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
35 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION Reply in supt of mtn to reopen disc #32 obo Ds. (m) (Entered: 02/14/2005)
36 ORDER ORD: A hrng is sched for 3-15-05 @ 1:30pm on D's mtn to reopen disc #32 in Ctrm #3D. cps dis (Entered: 03/09/2005)
37 ORDER ORD: P's mtn in limine #21 DENIED w/o prej as premature. cps dis (Entered: 03/10/2005)
38 MISCELLANEOUS HEARING (Tape #05-4-40 >5-1282<) re: hrng on mtn to reopen disc #32 - ORD: Mtn to reopen disc #32 GRNTD. Disc exp 5-13-05, dispo mtns due 6-17-05 & jnt PTO due 6-30-05; FUR ORD: P's req to reopen depo of Mr. Derman is DENIED as this time. cp (Entered: 03/16/2005)
39 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Def motion for s/j with two declarations attached (OA req) (m) DISPO: Objections #40, oppo #41, reply #42. Additional attachment(s) added on 11/30/2005 (MJZ, ). (Entered: 06/20/2005)
40 OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Objections to two declarations with the mtn for s/j #39. (m) (Entered: 07/06/2005)

4 of 8

6/12/2007 2:35 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728656243395562-L_92...

07/05/2005 07/15/2005 09/07/2005 12/20/2005 12/28/2005 03/09/2006 04/10/2006 04/19/2006 04/28/2006 04/28/2006
05/01/2006
05/01/2006 05/11/2006

41 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION Oppo to D mtn for s/j #39, with 3 declarations attatched. (filed seperate due to size).(s) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
42 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION Reply to oppo to mtn for s/j #39. obo D. W/ declaration of Judd and Winner. (s) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
43 ORDER ORD: mtn for part s/j #27 is GRNTD. cps dist. (Entered: 09/08/2005)
44 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Kent J. Dawson, U.S. District Judge on 12/20/2005. By Deputy Clerk: Peggie Vannozzi. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 1/20/2006.(no image attached) (PAV, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines: A motion for summary judgment is currently under submission, which renders the current due date for the filing of the proposed joint pretrial order premature. Therefore, the Proposed Joint Pretrial Order is due by 4/14/2006. (PAV, ) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
45 ORDER denying 39 Motion for Summary Judgment and finding as moot 41 Plaintiff's Objections. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 3/9/06. (AAB) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
46 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER by Defendant Sun Cab Company, Inc.. (Hicks, Patrick) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
47 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 46 Stipulation for time to file Pretrial Order. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 4/28/2006. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 4/17/06. (AXM, ) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
48 PROPOSED Pretrial Order JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER by Defendant Sun Cab Company, Inc., Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Judd, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
49 First MOTION in Limine Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Statistical Expert by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 5/16/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-1# 2 Exhibit A-2# 3 Exhibit A-3# 4 Exhibit B-1# 5 Exhibit B-2# 6 Exhibit B-3)(Laura, Peter) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
50 PRETRIAL ORDER: Jury Trial set for 8/28/2006 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6D before Judge Kent J. Dawson. Calendar Call set for 8/22/2006 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6D before Judge Kent J. Dawson. Trial Briefs due by 8/23/2006. Proposed Jury Instructions due by 8/23/2006. Proposed Voir Dire due by 8/23/2006. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 5/1/06. Motions in limine due 7/28/06; responses due 8/11/06. (PAV, ) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
51 ORDER re 50 Pretrial Order, this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Johnston to set a settlement conference. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 5/1/06. (PAV) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
52 RESPONSE to 49 First MOTION in Limine Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Statistical Expert; filed by Defendant Sun Cab Company, Inc.. OPPOSITION TO EEOC'S MOTION IN LIMINE (Judd, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/11/2006)

5 of 8

6/12/2007 2:35 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728656243395562-L_92...

06/02/2006 06/05/2006
06/15/2006 06/27/2006 06/27/2006 07/28/2006 08/08/2006
08/10/2006
08/10/2006 08/17/2006

53 ORDER OF RECUSAL. This action is referred to Chief Judge Philip M. Pro for reassignment. Signed by Judge Robert J. Johnston on 6/2/2006. (MXS ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
54 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Philip M. Pro, Chief U.S. District Judge on 6/5/2006. By Deputy Clerk: V. Hayes. IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned to Magistrate Judge George W Foley, Jr. for all further proceedings routinely referred to the Magistrate Judge. Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston no longer assigned to case. All further documents must bear the correct case number 2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF. (no image attached) (VHM, ) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
55 EXHIBIT LIST Supplemental by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A & B)(Laura, Peter) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
56 ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference: Settlement Conference set for 8/10/2006 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge George W Foley Jr.. Signed by Judge George W Foley Jr. on 6/26/06. (AXM) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
57 ORDER denying 49 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 6/26/06. (AXM) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
58 MOTION in Limine Excluding Evidence and Allegations about Hassan Bashir by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 8/15/2006. (Laura, Peter) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
59 ORDER REGARDING TRIAL: Jury Trial set for 8/28/2006 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6D before Judge Kent J. Dawson. Calendar Call set for 8/22/2006 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6D before Judge Kent J. Dawson. Exhibit List due by 8/23/2006. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law due by 8/23/2006. Proposed Voir Dire due by 8/23/2006. Proposed Jury Instructions due by 8/23/2006. Trial Briefs due by 8/23/2006. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 8/8/06. (PAV) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
60 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Settlement Conference held on 8/10/2006 before Judge George W Foley Jr.. Judicial Assistant: Julia Hill; Pla Counsel: Peter Laura, Anna Park, Angela Morrison; Def Counsel: Jeff Judd; Time of Hearing: 9:00 a.m. The court heard presentations from counsel and each of the parties present and thereafter met individually with counsel and each individual party. A settlement was reached, the terms of which were placed on the record. (no image attached) (JXH) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
62 ORDER regarding Settlement Conference held on 8/10/2006. A settlement was reached the terms of which are confidential and have been placed on the record. Parties are to file settlement/release documents and dismissal papers within 31 days from entry of this order. Settlement documents are due by 9/15/2006. Signed by Judge George W Foley Jr. on 8/10/06. (RFJ) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
The following Deadlines are terminated: 1) the deadline for the filing of the response to #58; 2) all deadlines set by the Order regarding trial, The following hearings are vacated pending reciept of settlement documents/dismissal: 1)the calendar call set for 8/22/06; 2) the trial set for 8/28/06. (PAV) (Entered: 08/17/2006)

6 of 8

6/12/2007 2:35 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728656243395562-L_92...

09/08/2006 09/11/2006 09/28/2006 09/28/2006 11/07/2006
12/07/2006
12/12/2006 12/13/2006 12/13/2006

63 STIPULATION re 62 Order,, Set/Reset Deadlines & Hearings, ; STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DATE FOR TELEPHONIC STATUS HEARING by Defendant Sun Cab Company, Inc., Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Judd, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
64 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 63: Telephonic status hearing continued to 10/2/2006 03:30 PM in LV Courtroom 3A before Magistrate Judge George W Foley Jr.. Signed by Judge George W Foley Jr. on 9/11/06. (LMC) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
65 STIPULATION re 63 Stipulation; and ORDER TO EXTEND DATE FOR TELEPHONIC STATUS HEARING [Second Request] by Defendant Sun Cab Company, Inc., Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Judd, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
66 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 65 Stipulation to extend date for telephonic status hearing. Status Conference set for 10/23/2006 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge George W Foley Jr.. Signed by Judge George W Foley Jr. on 9/28/06. (MAJ) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
67 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable George W Foley Jr., U.S. Magistrate Judge on 11/7/2006. By Judicial Assisant: Julia Hill. RE: 62 Order re settlement; A telephonic status hearing with counsel is scheduled for 4:30 p.m. on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006 in the chambers of U.S. Magistrate Judge Foley regarding the filing of the consent decree/settlement documents.(no image attached) (JXH) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
68 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable George W Foley Jr., U.S. Magistrate Judge on 12/7/2006. By Judicial Assistant: Julia Hill. RE: 62 Order re settlement. A telephonic status hearing with counsel is scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2006 in the chambers of U.S. Magistrate Judge Foley regarding the filing of the consent decree/settlement documents. Plaintiff's counsel shall initiate the call.(no image attached) (JXH) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
69 STIPULATED/CONSENT JUDGMENT [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER by Defendant Sun Cab Company, Inc.. (Judd, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
70 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable George W Foley Jr., U.S. Magistrate Judge on 12/13/2006. By Judicial Assistant: Julia Hill. Pursuant to the filing of 69 Stipulated/Consent Judgment, the telephonic status conference set for 12/13/06 is hereby VACATED.(no image attached) (JXH) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
71 CONSENT JUDGMENT and Order Decree closing case and resolving issues raised by EEOC. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 12/12/06. (AXM) (Entered: 12/13/2006)

PACER Service Center

7 of 8

6/12/2007 2:35 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?728656243395562-L_92...

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

06/12/2007 12:35:55

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:03-cv-01230-KJD-GWF

5

Cost:

0.40

8 of 8

6/12/2007 2:35 PM