ORIGINAL

I ~~~Irlr~~~-B~Y-J~07JI6(l34N~f)

D!~',!"

2 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Los Angeles District Office

3 255 East TemRle Street.. 4th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 9001 L

4 Telephone: (213)894-1083

FacsImile: (:213) 894-1031

5 E-mail: lado.legal(iil,eeoc.gov

6
WILFREDO TUNGOL, Bar No.2550 (HI) 7 U.S. EOUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Honolulu Local Office 8 3H0o0noAllualuM, HoaIn9a6B85lv0d-vA0R5m1 . 7-127 9 Telephone: (808) 541-3121
Facsimile: (808) 541-3390 10 E-mail: wilfredo.tungol@eeoc.gov
11 Attorneys for Plaintiff

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAIl
14
Civil Action No.
~O~~LAINT

(<:;ivil. Right~-Employment DIscnmmatlOn)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION 24
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title I
25
of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 {"Title VII")to correct unlawful employment
26
practices on the bases of national origin (Middle-EasternNemeni) and religion
27
(Muslim), and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Parties Abdullah Yahva,
28
COMPLAINT EEOC v. NCL America. et a1

1 Ahmed AI-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork

2 Yafaie, Samed Kassam, and other similarly situated individuals.

3

Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opprotunity Commission (the

4 "Commission") alleges that Defendants NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruisc

5 Line Ltd., and Norwegian Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as

6 "Defendants") subjected thc Charging Parties and othcr similarly situated

7 individuals to unlawful employment practices on the basis of their national origin

8 and religion. More specifically, Charging Parties Abdullah Yahva, Ahmed AI-

9 Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie and

10 other similarly situated individuals were discharged by Defendants on the basis of

11 their national origin (Middle-EastemlYemeni) and/or religion (Muslim) in violation

12 of Section 703(a) of Title VII. Further, Charging Party Samed Kassam, and

13 similarly situated individuals was constructively discharged on the basis of his

14 national origin (Middle-EastemlYemeni) and/or religion (Muslim) in violation of

15 Section 703(a) of Title VII.

16

17

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18

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

19 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to

20 § 706(t)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

21 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(l) and (3) ("Title VII") and § 102 ofTitle I of the Civil Rights

22 Actof1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

23

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed in

24 the City and County ofMaui, State of Hawaii and within the jurisdiction of the

25 United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

26

27

PARTIES

28

3. Plaintiff, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the

COMPLAINT

EEOC v. NCL America, et al

2

agency of the United States of America charged with the administration,

2 interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring

3 this action under §706(t)(l) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 5(t)(1) and (3).

4

4. At all relevant times, Defendant NCL America, Inc., a Delaware

5 corporation, has been continuously doing business within the jurisdiction of the

6 United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Norwegian Cruise Line

7 Ltd., a Bermuda corporation, is the parent corporation of Defendant NCL America,

8 Inc.

9

Defendant NCL Corporation Ltd., a foreign corporation, is the parent

10 corporation of Defendants NCL America, Inc., and Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.,

11 and oversees their operations in the State of Hawaii. All the corporate entities are

12 hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendants."

13

5. At all relevant times, all Defendants have continuously been

14 employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of

15 Section 701(b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b), (g), and (h).

16

6. At all relevant times, all Defendants have continuously employed

17 fifteen (IS) or more persons.

18

19

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

20

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

21 Yahva, Ahmed AI-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi,

22 Nork Yafaie and Samed Kassam filed charges with the Commission alleging

23 violations of Title VII by Defendants. The Commission issued Letters of

24 Determination finding that these Charging Parties and other similarly situated

25 individuals were discharged on the basis of their national origin (Yemeni/Middle

26 Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim). All conditions precedent to the institution of

27 this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

28

8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Samed

COMPLAINT

EEOC v. NCL America, et a1

3

Kassam filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of

2 Title VII by Defendants. The Commission issued a Letter of Determination

3 finding that Charging Party Samed Kassam was constructively discharged on the

4 basis of his national origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim),

5 and that other similarly situated individuals were discharged on the basis of their

6 national origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim). All conditions

7 precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

8

9. Since at least July 2004, Defendants have engaged in unlawful

9 employment practices at its Hawaii facility, in violation of §703(a) ofTitIe VII, 42

10 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), by discharging the Charging Parties and other similarly

11 situated individuals named above on the basis of their national origin

12 (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim).

13

10. The effect of the actions complained of above has been to deprive

14 Charging Parties Abdullah M. Yahva, Ahmed AI-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi

15 A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Samed Kassam and other similarly

16 situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely

17 affect their status as employees on the basis of their national origin

18 (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim).

19

II . The effect of the actions complained of above has been to deprive

20 Charging Party Samed Kassam and other similarly situated individuals of equal

21 employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees

22 on the basis of their national origin Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion

23 (Muslim).

24

12. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were

25 intentional.

26

13. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done

27 with malice and/or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of

28 Charging Parties Abdullah Yahva, Ahmed AI-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A.

COMPLAINT

EEOC v. NCL America. er al

4

Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Vafaie, Samed Kassam and other similarly

2 situated individuals.

3

14. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' aforesaid acts,

4 Charging Parties Abdullah Yahva, Ahmed Al-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A.

5 Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Vafaie, Samed Kassam, and other similarly

6 situated individuals have each suffered emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,

7 loss of employment of life, humiliation and damages, according to proof.

8

15. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' aforesaid acts, Charging

9 Parties Abdullah Yahva, Ahmed AI-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam,

10 Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Vafaie, Samed Kassam, and other similarly situated

11 individuals have each suffered a loss of earnings in amounts according to proof.

12

13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

14

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

15

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers,

16 successors, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participation with

17 Defendants, from engaging in any employment practice on the basis of national

18 origin and religion;

19

B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and

20 programs which prohibit national origin discrimination, religious discrimination,

21 and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of national

22 origin or religion, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful

23 employment practices;

24

C. Order Defendants to make whole all the Charging Parties and others

25 similarly situated individuals, by providing appropriate back pay and benefits with

26 prejudgment interest, andlor other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the

27 effects of their unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to

28 reinstatement and/or front pay and other appropriate relief to be determined at trial;

COMPLAINT

EEOC v. NCL America. ct al

5

1

D. Order Defendants to make all the Charging Parties and others

2 similarly situated whole by providing compensation for past and future non-

3 pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices complained of

4 above, including but not limited to, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience,

5 loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;

6

E. Order Defendants to pay all the Charging Parties and others similarly

7 situated punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct as described

8 above, in amounts to be determined at trial;

9

F. Grant such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper in the

10 public interest; and

11

G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

12 III

13 III

14 III

15 III

16 III

17 III

18 III

19 III

20 III

21 III

22 III

23 III

24 !//

25 //1

26 III

27

28

COMPLAINT

EEOC v. NCL America, ot al

6

1

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2

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

 
 1 DAPHNE E. BARBEE 2911 Attorney at Law
2 1188 Bishop #1909 Honolulu, HI. 96813
3 Telephone: (808) 533-0275

HONORABLE SAMUEL P. KING HONORABLE BARRY M. KURREN

4 THOMAS M. GEISNESS 1878 The Geisness Law Firm
5 Colman Building, Suite 675 811 First Avenue
6 Seattle, WA. 98104 Telephone: (206) 728-8866
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors
8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

10

11 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
12
and 13
ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED AL14 MLHANY, AHMED ALMRAISI, NAGI A.
ALZIAM, MUTHANA A. SHAIBI, NORK 15 YAFAIE, and SAMED KASSAM,

NO. CV06-00451 SPK-BMK
COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS

16

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

17

v.

18 NCL AMERICA, INC., NORWEGIAN
CRUISE LINE Ltd., and NORWEGIAN 19 CORPORATION Ltd.,

20

Defendants.

21

22

COMES NOW the P laintiff-Intervenors Abdullah Yahia, Ahmed Al-Mlhany, Ahmed

23 Almraisi, Nagi A. Alz iam, Muthana A. Shai bi, Nork Yafaie, and Samed Kassam, and, for 24 cause of action against the defendants, alleges and states as follows: 25

COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 1

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1

I. NATURE OF ACTION

2

1.1 This is an action to recover damag es arising from unlawful discrimination in

3 violation of Title VII of the Civil Rig hts Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et. seq,

4 the Civil Rights Act of 1991; 42 U.S.C. §1981; and Section 378-2 of Hawaii’s Employment

5 Practices Act, H.R.S. Chapter 378.

6 1.2 Plaintiff-Intervenors have an unconditiona l statutory right to intervene in this
7 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a).
8

II. PARTIES 9

10

2.1 Plaintiff Equal Employ ment Opportunity Commission (“Commission”) is the

11 agency of the United States charg ed with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of

12 Title VII and is ex pressly authorized to bring this action under §706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VI I,

13 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

14

2.2 Plaintiff-Intervenor Abdullah Yahia is a resident of Tacoma, W ashington. At

15 all relevant times, Yahia was an “employee” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f) and

16 was engaged in “employment” with defendants within the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statute

17 §378-1.
18 2.3 Plaintiff-Intervenor Ahmed Al-Mlhany is a resident of Dearborn, Michig an. At
19 all relevant times, Al-Mlhany was an “employee” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f)
20 and was engaged in “employ ment” with defenda nts within the meaning of Hawaii Revised
21 Statute §378-1.
22

23

2.4 Plaintiff-Intervenor Ahmed Almraisi is a resident of Tacoma, W ashington. At

24 all relevant times, Almraisi was an “employee” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f) and

25

COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 2

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1 was engaged in “employment” with defendants within the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statute

2 §378-1.

3

2.5 Plaintiff-Intervenor Nagi A. Alz iam is a resident of B rooklyn, New York. At

4 all relevant times, Alziam was an “employee” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f) and
5 was engaged in “employment” with defendants within the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statute 6
§378-1. 7
2.6 Plaintiff-Intervenor Muthana A. S haibi is a resident of B rooklyn, New York. 8
At all relevant times, Shaibi was an “employ ee” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f) 9
10 and was engaged in “employ ment” with defenda nts within the meaning of Hawaii Revised
11 Statute §378-1.

12

2.7 Plaintiff-Intervenor Nork Yafaie is a resident of Brooklyn, New York. At all

13 relevant times, Yafaie was an “employee” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f) and was

14 engaged in “employ ment” with defendants with in the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statute

15 §378-1.

16

2.8 Plaintiff-Intervenor Samed Kassam is a resident of Seattle, Washington. At all

17 relevant times, Kassam was an “employ ee” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f) and

18 was engaged in “employment” with defendants within the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statute

19 §378-1.
20 2.9
21

At all relevant times, Defendant NCL America, I nc., a Delaware corporation,

has been continuously doing business within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court 22

23 for the District of Hawaii. Norweg ian Cruise Line Ltd., a Bermuda corporation, is the parent

24 corporation of Defendant NCL America, Inc.

25

COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 3

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1

2.10 Defendant NCL Corporation L td., a foreign corporation, is the parent

2 corporation of Defendants NCL America, Inc., and Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., and oversees

3 their operations in the State of Hawaii. All the corporate entities are hereinafter collectively

4 referred to as “Defendants.”

5

2.11 At all relevant times, all Defendants have continuously been employ ers

6 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of sections 701(b), (g ) and (h)
7 of Title VI I, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-(b), (g ) and (h), and are employ ers within the meaning of
8
Hawaii Revised Statute §378-1. 9

10

2.12 At all relevant times, all Defendants have continuously employed fifteen (15) or

11 more persons.

12

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13

3.1 This Court has orig inal jurisdiction over the P laintiff-Intervenors’ federal

14 claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

15

3.2 This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the P laintiff-Intervenors’ state

16 law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

17

3.3 Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(2) as all of the unlawful acts

18 alleged herein occurred in the City and Count y of Maui, State of Hawaii and within the

19 jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
20 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
21

4.1 More than thirty days prior to the in stitution of this lawsuit Plaintiffs filed 22

23 charges with the Equal Employ ment Opportunity Commission alleging violations of Title VII

24 by Defendants. The Commission issued L etters of Determination finding the plaintiffs were

25

COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 4

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1 discharged on the basis of th eir national origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or relig ion

2 (Muslim). All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

3

4.2 More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit plaintiff Samed

4 Kassam filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII

5 by Defendants. The Commission issued a L etter of Determination finding that plaintiff Samed

6 Kassam was constructively discharged on the basis of his nation origin (Yemeni/Middle
7 Eastern) and/or relig ion (Muslim). All conditions precedent to th e institution of this lawsuit
8
have been fulfilled. 9

10

4.3 Since at least J uly 2004, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employ ment

11 practices at its Hawaii facility , in violation of § 703(a) of T itle VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a),

12 and Hawaii Revised Statute §378-2, by discharging the Plaintiffs on the basis of their national

13 origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim).

14

4.4 The effect of the actions complained of above has been to deprive the Plaintiffs

15 and other individuals of equal employment opportunities and othe rwise adversely affect their

16 status as em ployees on t he basis of their national origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or

17 religion (Muslim).
18 4.5 The effect of the actions complained of above has been to deprive the Plaintiff
19 Samed Kassam and other individuals of equal employ ment opportunities and otherwise
20 adversely affect his status as em ployee on t he basis of his national origin (Yemeni/Middle
21 Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim).
22

23

4.6 The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

24

25

COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 5

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1

4.7 The unlawful employ ment practices complained of above were done with

2 malice and/or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs and other

3 similarly situated individuals.

4

4.8 The unlawful employ ment practices complained of above were done with

5 malice and/or with reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated

6 individuals that are protected by the laws of the State of Hawaii.

7

4.9 As a direct and prox imate result of De fendants’ aforesaid act s, Plaintiffs and 8

other similarly situated individuals have each suffered emotional pain, suffering

,

9

10 inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation and damages, according to proof.

11

4.10 As a direct and prox imate result of De fendants’ aforesaid act s, Plaintiffs and

12 other similarly situated individuals have each suffered a loss of earnings in amounts according

13 to proof.

14

V. CLAIM ALLEGATIONS

15

Employment Discrimination

16

5.1 Defendants’ conduct, de scribed above, constituted di scrimination on the basis

17 of Plaintiffs’ national origin in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a).
18 5.2 Defendants’ conduct, desc ribed above, constituted di scrimination on the basis
19 of Plaintiffs’ religion in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a).
20 5.3 Defendants’ conduct, described above, c onstituted discrimination on the basis
21 of Plaintiffs’ national origin in violation of §42 U.S.C. §1981.
22

23

5.4 Defendants’ conduct, de scribed above, constituted di scrimination on the basis

24 of Plaintiffs’ ancestry in violation of Hawaii Revised Statute §378-2.

25

COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 6

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1

5.5 Defendants’ conduct, desc ribed above, constituted di scrimination on the basis

2 of Plaintiffs’ religion in violation of Hawaii Revised Statute §378-2.

3

Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

4

5.6 Defendants’ negligently and/or intentionally and/or recklessly inflicted

5 emotional distress on Plaintiffs. Defendants’ actions were outrag eous and directly and

6 proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries, including emotional distress.
7 VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
8
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants as follows: 9

10

6.1 For special and g eneral compensatory damages on all of their claims in an

11 amount to be proven at trial;

12

6.2 For punitive damages for violation of 42 U.S.C §1981; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-

13 2(a) and H.R.S. 378-2.

14

6.3 For back pay.

15

6.4 For front pay and other past and future pecuniary losses.

16

6.5 For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, pursuant to

17 and/or the Laws of the State of Hawaii.
18 ////
19 ////
20 ////
21 ////
22

23 ////

24 ////

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(k)

25 ////

COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 7

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1

VII. JURY DEMAND

2

7.1 Messrs. Yahia, Al-Mlhany , Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi, Yafaie, and Kassam

3 respectfully requests that this matter be tried to a jury of their peers.

4

5

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2006 at Seattle, Washington.

6

7

S/ Thomas M. Geisness

8

THOMAS M. GEISNESS

Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 8

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

 
 MARR HIPP JONES & WANG
A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP

RICHARD M. RAND CHRISTOPHER S. YEH 1001 Bishop Street 1550 Pauahi Tower Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Tel. No. (808) 536-4900 Fax No. (808) 536-6700 E-mail: rrand@marrhipp.com

2773-0 6777-0

Attorneys for Defendants NCL AMERICA INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., and NORWEGIAN CORPORATION LTD.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED

)

ALMLHANY, AHMED ALMRAISI, )

NAGI A. ALZIAM, MUTHANA A. )

SHAIBI, NORK YAFAIE, and SAMED )

KASSAM,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

)

)

Caption cont’d on next page

)

CIVIL NO. CV06-00451 SPK BMK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF EEOC’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER RULE 26(c) DATED MARCH 9, 2007 [DOCKET 53]

Hearing DATE: TIME: JUDGE:

March 22, 2007 11:00 a.m. Barry M. Kurren

TRIAL: November 6, 2007

EEOC v. NCL - Deny Protective Order WP/544.020

vs.

) CIVIL NO. CV 06-00451 SPK BMK

)

NCL AMERICA INC.,

)

NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., )

and NORWEGIAN CORPORATION )

LTD.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_______________________________ )

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF EEOC’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER RULE 26(c) DATED MARCH 9, 2007 [DOCKET 53] Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Protective Order filed on March 9, 2007 was heard by the Court on March 22, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. Connie Liem and Wilfredo Tungol appeared for the EEOC, Thomas Geisness for the Plaintiff-Intervenors and Richard Rand for the Defendants. The Court having reviewed the Motion and the Opposition filed by Defendant NCL America finds as follows: Defendant NCL America ( “NCLA”) served a Notice of Taking Deposition pursuant Rule 30(b)(6) on Plaintiff EEOC. The EEOC objected and the parties could not resolve the matter in their conference pursuant to Local Rule 37.1. The EEOC seeks a Protective Order preventing the deposition in its entirety, contending that it would be cumulative, burdensome and irrelevant. NCLA contends that it is entitled to take the deposition to obtain factual information about the investigation. NCLA amended its Notice of Taking Deposition adding the

EEOC v. NCL - Deny Protective Order WP/544.020

2.

subjects of Drafting of the Charges of Discrimination, any investigation into Defendants NCL Corporation and Norwegian Cruise Lines, and the person most knowledgeable about the EEOC’s response to NCLA’s Request for Interrogatories.
The Court does not find that the EEOC has established good cause to prevent the deposition from going forward. The Court will allow the deposition to proceed as to inquires into factual areas, not the thought process of the EEOC’s investigator. Defendant will be permitted to ask questions as to the source of the factual information set forth in the EEOC’s Interrogatory Answers, and the actions of the investigator with respect to Defendants NCL Corporation and Norwegian Cruise Lines, Defendant may ask the Investigator about the facts he gathered but not about questions he asked during the witness interviews or why the Investigator did or did not ask certain questions. The Court will resolve issues about specific questions if and when they are brought to the Court.
/ / / / / / / / / / / /

EEOC v. NCL - Deny Protective Order WP/544.020

3.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion For Protective Order is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Barry M. Kurren United States Magistrate Judge Dated: April 19, 2007

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ ANNA Y. PARK, ESQ. CONNIE LIEM, ESQ. WILFREDO TUNGOL, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
/s/ DAPHNE E. BARBEE, ESQ. THOMAS M. GEISNESS, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors Abdullah Yahia, Ahmed Almlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, and Samed Kassam
_________________________________________________________________ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF EEOC’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER RULE 26(c) DATED MARCH 9, 2007 [DOCKET 53] U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Abdullah Yahia,et al. Vs. NCL America Inc., et al.; Civil No. CV 06-00451 SPK BMK

EEOC v. NCL - Deny Protective Order WP/544.020

4.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

and

)

)

ABDULLAY YAHIA, AMNED AL- )

MLHANY, AHMED ALMRAISI, )

NAGI A. ALZIAM, MUTHANA A. )

SHAIBI, NORK YAFAIE, and

)

SAMED KASSAM,

)

)

Plaintiffs-Intervenors )

)

vs.

)

)

NCL AMERICA INC.,

)

NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE

)

LTD., AND NORWEGIAN

)

CORPORATION LTD,

)

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________ )

CIV. NO. 06-00451 SPK-BMK
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EEOC’S APPLICATION FOR RENEWED PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE NCL’S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EEOC’S APPLICATION FOR RENEWED PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND (2) DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE NCL’S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS

On March 22, 2007, the Court issued an oral ruling denying the

motion for a protective order filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“EEOC”). At issue was whether, and to what extent, NCL should be

allowed to depose the EEOC investigators regarding the drafting of the EEOC

charges. The Court ruled at that time that Defendant NCL America Inc. (“NCL”) could question the EEOC investigators as to the facts they relied upon, but not as to their mental impressions or strategy.
Five days later, before the written order was filed, the EEOC filed a motion titled “Emergency Ex Parte Application for Renewed Protective Order, Clarification on Court’s Oral Ruling, a Written Ruling on the Merits Regarding Protective Order, and To Suspend Such Deposition.” Moreover, EEOC did not produce the investigators NCL sought to depose. In response, NCL filed a motion for Rule 37 sanctions against EEOC. These two motions were heard on April 30, 2007.
At the hearing, counsel for EEOC indicated continuing uncertainty in three specific areas: (1) to what extent NCL could inquire into the drafting of the EEOC charges; (2) whether NCL could depose Mr. Tungol under Rule 30(b)(6), or whether the EEOC’s amended interrogatory responses sufficed; and (3) whether NCL was entitled to discover information regarding the EEOC Charge filed by third party Abdulla Nasser.
The EEOC’s motion is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED in PART. First, the Court reiterates that NCL can depose EEOC investigators regarding the facts upon which the EEOC charges were based and from where
2

those facts were obtained, but may not seek information related to the investigators’ mental impressions, why they did or did not pursue a certain course or line of inquiry, or EEOC’s legal strategy. Second, the Court will allow NCL to depose Mr. Tungol. However, once again, NCL may question Mr. Tungol only regarding the underpinnings of the EEOC’s interrogatory responses, not regarding legal strategies or other privileged information. Third, NCL may not discover information regarding the EEOC Charge filed by third party Abdulla Nasser. EEOC indicated at the hearing that it did not rely on information in Nasser’s file in drafting the charges at issue here.
Finally, NCL’s motion for sanctions is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court recognizes that the parties may not have fully understood the Court’s March 22, 2007 ruling. Now that these issues have been clarified, however, the Court expects that the parties will comply fully with the Court’s ruling and will move forward with the depositions and other discovery that are requested pursuant to this ruling. Should this not be the case, NCL may renew its motion for sanctions at a later date.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Barry M. Kurren United States Magistrate Judge Dated: May 2, 2007
EEOC v. NCL America Inc.; Civ. No. 06-00451 SPK-BMK; ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EEOC’S APPLICATION FOR RENEWED PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE NCL’S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS.
4

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and
ABDULLAH YAHIA, ET AL.
Plaintiffs-Intervenors
vs.
NCL AMERICA INC., ET AL.
Defendants.

) CIVIL NO. 06-00451 SPK-BMK ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO PARTIALLY DISMISS PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT

Defendants seek partial dismissal of Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ Complaint filed

November 22, 2006. (The Court has already ruled as to part of the present motion,

as well as to Defendants’ companion motion [Docket entry 31]. This order

concerns the remaining issues, as set forth in the Court’s order of August 8, 2007.)

The matter was heard on August 15, 2007. Richard Rand appeared for Defendants;

Thomas Geisness appeared for Plaintiffs-Intervenors and Connie Liem appeared

for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). For the reasons set

forth, the Court DENIES the Motion. I.
The parties are familiar with the factual background of this employment discrimination action brought primarily under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Court need not repeat the details of the allegations here. The primary remaining question for the present motion concerns the state-law statutory claim under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-2, which is essentially the state-law equivalent of Title VII, with potentially different remedies. The issue is whether this Court should apply the “single-filing” or “piggyback” rule set forth in cases such as Foster v. Rhurpumpen, Inc., 365 F.3d 1191, 1197-98 (10th Cir. 2004) to the statelaw claims of four Plaintiffs-Intervenors (Nagi Alzaim, Samed Kassam, Muthana Shaibi, and Nork Yafaie) so as to excuse the 180-day filing requirement set forth in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-11(c).1
It is undisputed that each of the “dual-filed” EEOC administrative
1 Section 368-11(c) provides: (c) No [administrative] complaint shall be filed after the expiration of one hundred eighty days after the date: (1) Upon which the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice occurred; or (2) Of the last occurrence in a pattern of ongoing discriminatory practice.
2

complaints of Alzaim, Kassam, Shaibi, and Yafaie were filed after 180-days of
their allegedly wrongful terminations on July 24, 2004 (or July 25, 2004 for
Kassam), but within 300 days of the terminations. That is, they were late under state-law, but timely under federal law.2 It is also undisputed that three other
Plaintiffs-Intervenors (Ahmed Almraisi, Abdullah Yahia, and Ahmed Al-Mlhany)
filed timely administrative complaints under Hawaii law, i.e., before the 180-day
period expired. The four seek to “piggy-back” on these three timely administrative
complaints.
It is also undisputed that Hawaii is a “worksharing” state such that
administrative claims with the EEOC are deemed “dual-filed” with the Hawaii
Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) (or vice-versa). Here, all seven Plaintiffs-
Intervenors filed their administrative claims with the EEOC. The EEOC charges of
all seven Plaintiffs-Intervenors were forwarded to, or deemed filed with, the HCRC
under the workshare agreement. The four at issue were deemed untimely by the
2 Title VII extends the 180-day period to 300-days if filed in a “worksharing” jurisdiction. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); E.E.O.C. v. Dinuba Med. Clinic, 222 F.3d 580, 585 (9th Cir. 2000); Urrutia v. Valero Energy Corp., 841 F.2d 123, 126 (5th Cir. 1988) (concluding that an employment discrimination claimant is entitled to a 300-day period for filing with the EEOC, regardless of whether other proceedings were timely instituted under state law, where a state worksharing agreement waives exclusive jurisdiction over Title VII actions as to claims filed between 80 and 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment action).
3

HCRC under state-law. [Declaration of Timothy A. Riera of Feb. 16, 2007, at ¶¶ 4-5]. In any event, the HCRC did not handle these cases. Rather, the EEOC took the lead and investigated and conducted some form of conciliation with Defendant or Defendants before the EEOC filed this suit. The individuals then filed a joint Complaint-in-Intervention.
It also appears undisputed that all Plaintiffs-Intervenors are making essentially the same claim of unlawful discrimination based upon their Muslim religion or national-origin (Yemeni or Middle-Eastern). Three are American citizens of Yemeni/Yemenese descent; the other four are citizens of Yemen. The terminations allegedly occurred under the same or very similar circumstances on the same day. Although Kassam alleges he was constructively discharged (he was not terminated on July 24, 2004, but “quit” the next day) -- in contrast to the others who were terminated -- the claims were apparently investigated together by the EEOC.
Given the allegations in the relevant complaint, and without considering or weighing evidence, the Court considers all seven Plaintiffs-Intervenors to be making essentially the same allegations of unlawful discrimination under both Title VII and Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-2. That is, all the claims arise out of the same circumstances and occurred within the same general time frame. Indeed, in its
4

individual Letters of Determination finding reasonable cause, the EEOC found that “[t]he evidence also indicates a class of Yemeni/Middle Eastern employees were discharged because of their national origin . . . the record [also] indicates that a class of Muslim employees were discharged because of their religion . . . there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent discriminated against Charging party and a class of employees because of their national origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and religion (Muslim).” Defendants’ Exh. B, EEOC Letters of Determination at pages 1-2 (emphases added).
Thus -- but-for application of an exception such as the “single-filing” rule -the state law claims of Alzaim, Kassam, Shaibi, and Yafaie would be time-barred because they did not meet the 180-day deadline in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-11(c) for filing administrative claims. The question is whether to apply the exception so as to deem the state-law claims timely. Again, this order has no effect on the pending federal claims.
II. Normally, a plaintiff invoking Title VII (or similar federal statute such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act) must exhaust administrative remedies by filing a timely EEOC charge before bringing suit. See, e.g., Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir. 1990). However, “the federal courts have universally
5

recognized an exception to the individual filing rule which provides that ‘in a multiple-plaintiff, non-class action suit, if one plaintiff has filed a timely EEOC complaint as to that plaintiff's individual claim, then co-plaintiffs with individual claims arising out of similar discriminatory treatment in the same time frame need not have satisfied the filing requirement.’” Foster v. Ruhrpumpen, Inc., 365 F.3d 1191, 1197 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Allen v. United States Steel Corp., 665 F.2d 689, 695 (5th Cir. 1982)). “This exception to the individual filing requirement is known alternatively as the ‘single filing rule,’ or ‘piggybacking.’” Id. (citations omitted).
Filing a charge is deemed “useless” where the employer is already on notice that plaintiffs may file discrimination claims, thus negating the need for additional filings. Id. (citing Horton v. Jackson County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 343 F.3d 897, 899 (7th Cir.2003) and Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1110 (10th Cir.2001)). “The policy behind the single filing rule is that it would be wasteful, if not vain, for numerous employees, all with the same grievance, to have to process many identical complaints with the EEOC.” Thiessen, 267 F.3d at 1110 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). The rule has been applied under various circumstances by (at least) the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. Ruhrpumpen, 365 F.3d at 1197 (citing cases);
6

Anderson v. Unisys Corp., 47 F.3d 302, 308 (8th Cir. 1995). The rule is “universally [held].” Anson v. Univ. of Tex. Health Science Center, 962 F.2d 539, 541 (5th Cir. 1992). Similarly, the rule has been adopted in state courts under similar state statutes. See Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Dearing, ___ S.W. 3d ___, 2007 WL 2214683, at *24 (Tex. App. Aug. 3, 2007) (publication pending). Most courts have adopted a test -- especially in a class-action or class-like action -requiring only that the timely exhausted claims and the non-exhausted claims arise out of the same circumstances and occur within the same general time frame. E.g., Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2004).
There is some indication that the Ninth Circuit has declined to adopt the rule. See Inda v. United Air Lines, 565 F.2d 554, 559 (9th Cir. 1977) (“if one brings suit on his own behalf, or as a named plaintiff on behalf of a class, he must have secured a right to sue by timely following the procedures set forth in Title VII.”). However, to the extent such language in Inda is not dicta, it has been restricted to its facts where a plaintiff sought to rely on an administrative charge of an individual employee in a separate action, and where the EEOC charge did not give sufficient notice that other similarly-situated persons would also be affected. See Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2002 WL 32769185, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2002) (limiting Inda’s application); see also White v. BFI Waste Services, LLC,
7

375 F.3d 288, 293-94 (4th Cir. 2004) (observing that the single-filing rule allows plaintiffs who have not exhausted administrative filing requirements to join in a lawsuit with other plaintiff, as opposed to bringing a separate suit on their own behalf); Price v. Choctaw Glove & Safety Co., Inc., 459 F.3d 595, 599 (5th Cir. 2005) (same). Because the four Plaintiffs-Intervenors at issue here are invoking the “single-filing” rule to join with the other three Plaintiffs-Intervenors in a classlike situation, Inda would not bar application of the single-filing rule.
In any event, ultimately the question is not whether the Ninth Circuit would adopt, or has rejected, the rule under Title VII. Rather, the question is whether Hawaii’s courts would adopt the rule in application of Hawaii statutory law. In the present posture, this Court is essentially predicting Hawaii law based upon existing authority. See, e.g., Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530, 537 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[the Court] must use [its] best judgment to predict how the Hawaii Supreme Court would decide [the] issue.”); Takahashi v. Loomis Armored Car Service, 625 F.2d 314, 316 (9th Cir. 1980) (“In so doing, a federal court may be aided by looking to well-reasoned decisions from other jurisdictions.”).
After reviewing the authorities, the Court concludes that the “single-filing” rule applies here under Hawaii law. Hawaii’s courts find federal precedent under Title VII and other similar laws to be persuasive in interpreting Haw. Rev. Stat.
8

§ 378-2. See, e.g., Arquero v. Hilton Hawaiian Village LLC, 91 P.3d 505, 511-12 (Haw. 2004) (“In interpreting HRS § 378-2, we have held that federal courts' interpretations of Title VII . . . are persuasive, but not controlling.”); Shoppe v. Gucci America, Inc., 94 Haw. 368, 377, 14 P.3d 1049, 1058 (2000) (“In interpreting HRS § 378-2 in the context of race and gender discrimination, we have previously looked to the interpretations of analogous federal laws by the federal courts for guidance.”).
Although the parties have not cited, and the Court has not found any published Hawaii authority reaching this issue, the Hawaii Supreme Court has allowed an “untimely” plaintiff to intervene in a similar circumstance. See Kepoo v. Kane, 103 P.3d 939, 954-55 (Haw. 2005) (allowing late intervention where other parties had filed timely complaints) (citing with approval Cook v. Boorstin, 763 F.2d 1462, 1465 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (explaining that generally circuit courts have “allowed the exhaustion requirement [pursuit to civil action under Title VII] to be satisfied vicariously [ (i.e., by other parties) ] under certain circumstances”) (square brackets in original)).
Here, the Defendant (or Defendants) had ample notice of PlaintiffsIntervenors’ claims. All seven Plaintiffs-Intervenors had filed timely federal EEOC administrative claims and the EEOC investigated and ultimately found
9

cause to bring suit on its own under federal law. Under such circumstances, the same policies that allow a “single filing rule” under Title VII apply with equal force under the Hawaii statute. Ruhrpumpen, 365 F.3d at 1197 (“The act of filing a charge is deemed ‘useless’ in situations in which the employer is already on notice that plaintiffs may file discrimination claims, thus negating the need for additional filings.”) (citations omitted).
III. Defendants argue that, even if the “single filing” rule is well-accepted, it “does not apply to individuals who actually filed their own charges.” Reply memorandum at 5 (citing cases). They appear to be only half right. Such an exception to the single-filing exception might properly bar a late suit, but does not have to bar a late administrative claim.3 All the cases cited by Defendants where courts have refused to apply the single-filing rule are either (1) where a plaintiff has filed his or her own administrative claim and then failed to file a timely federal
3 Two different statutes of limitations are at issue. Under Hawaii law, an administrative claim must be filed within 180-days of the unlawful discriminatory action. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 368-11. This is a different deadline than that for filing suit. Once the HCRC issues a right-to-sue letter, the plaintiff then has 90-days under state law within which to file a civil action in court. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 36812; see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
10

suit,4 or (2) where the party attempted to add a different theory to that which was exhausted.5
Different policy considerations are at issue where a plaintiff has allowed a suit-filing deadline to lapse after obtaining a right-to-sue letter. Allowing such a deadline to lapse would demonstrate dilatoriness or lack of diligence (or waiver); not allowing “piggybacking” would be consistent with the policy behind enforcing statutory deadlines. Once that filing date has passed, he or she might properly be barred for reasons of repose from “piggybacking” on a more diligent plaintiff.
Such an exception to the single-filing rule, however, does not (or should not) apply to bar a plaintiff from “piggy-backing” on other properly-exhausted statelaw administrative claims, especially where (1) the claims were otherwise timely under federal law, (2) the claims were of a class nature, and (3) the claims were investigated on a joint basis. Again, the EEOC found -- even with Kassam -- that “[t]he evidence . . . indicates a class of Yemeni/Middle Eastern employees were discharged because of their national origin . . . the record [also] indicates that a
4 See, e.g., Anderson, 47 F.3d at 308 (concluding that failure of plaintiffs to file suit within the proper period after receiving a right-to-sue letter precluded them from joining another plaintiff’s claim); Gitlitz v. Compaigne National Air France, 129 F.3d 554, 558 (11th Cir. 1997); Campbell v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 163 F. Supp. 2d 19, 25 (D.D.C. 2001).
5 Mooney v. Aramco Services, 54 F.3d 1207, 1223 (5th Cir. 1995).
11

class of Muslim employees were discharged because of their religion . . . there is reasonable cause to believe that Respondent discriminated against . . . a class of employees because of their national origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and religion (Muslim).” Defendants’ Exh. B, EEOC Determination letters at pages 1-2 (emphases added).
Courts have recognized the irony in barring a plaintiff who at least attempted to exhaust administrative remedies in a timely manner but not barring a plaintiff who did nothing until after the federal suit was filed. See, e.g., Anderson, 47 F.3d at 308-09 (recognizing the irony but applying the exception to the rule where the plaintiffs had obtained their own right-to-sue letters, but failed to file a federal suit). Enforcing the “exception to the exception” (i.e., bar application of the single-filing rule because the four Plaintiffs-Intervenors had filed their own administrative claims after 180-days) would indeed be ironic here. It would potentially reward someone who did nothing while penalizing someone who made good-faith attempts to satisfy administrative prerequisites.
Recognizing the competing policy concerns, the Court concludes that the “exception to the exception” should not apply to bar the suit here. The piggyback rule exists to excuse the exhaustion requirement where, as here, there is little risk of unfair prejudice to Defendants. All Plaintiffs-Intervenors filed timely federal
12

administrative claims. All filed a timely federal suit. The EEOC is a joint Plaintiff. The EEOC investigated the claim or claims on a joint basis. The claims are of a class nature. Defendant (or Defendants) were on notice that all PlaintiffsIntervenors were pursuing actions. Even if the potential remedies might be different under state law than under federal law, the “single-filing” or “piggyback” rule should apply to allow the parallel state law claims to continue for all the Plaintiffs-Intervenors.
IV. In their opposition papers, Plaintiffs-Intervenors also argue that it is premature to dismiss their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and for Negligent/Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress under state law. These points were not stressed by the parties and these arguments may have been meant only as to the claims against Co-Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., and Norwegian Corporation, Ltd. (the subject of the companion motion, which this Court has denied on different grounds). Regardless, to the extent Defendants seek to dismiss claims under section 1981 and under state common law, the Court agrees that it would be premature to dismiss the claims at this stage of the litigation. Assuming the allegations of the complaint are true, claims are stated for violations of section 1981 and negligent
13

or intentional infliction of emotional distress. V.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs-Intervenor’s Complaint is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 31, 2007.
_____________________________ Samuel P. King Senior United States District Judge
14

 
 MARR HIPP JONES & WANG
A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP

RICHARD M. RAND

2773-0

CHRISTOPHER S. YEH

6777-0

DARIN R. LEONG

8702-0

Pauahi Tower

1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1550

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Tel. No. (808) 536-4900

Fax No. (808) 536-6700

E-mail: rrand@marrhipp.com

Attorneys for Defendants NCL AMERICA INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., and NORWEGIAN CORPORATION LTD.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED

)

ALMLHANY, AHMED ALMRAISI, )

NAGI A. ALZIAM, MUTHANA A. )

SHAIBI, NORK YAFAIE, and SAMED )

KASSAM,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

)

)

Caption cont’d on next page

)

CIVIL NO. CV06-00451 SOM BMK
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES [DOCKET 158]; AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION’S MOTION VIA LETTER BRIEF TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [174]

vs.

)

)

NCL AMERICA INC.,

)

NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., )

and NORWEGIAN CORPORATION )

LTD.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_______________________________ )

CIVIL NO. CV 06-00451 SOM BMK

Hearing DATE: TIME: JUDGE:

November 15, 2007 9:30 a.m. Barry M. Kurren

TRIAL: February 26, 2008

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES [DOCKET 158]; AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION’S
MOTION VIA LETTER BRIEF TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Defendant NCL America Inc.’s Motion To Compel and For Reasonable Expenses (“NCLA’s Motion To Compel”) [Docket 158] and Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s motion via letter brief to compel discovery (“EEOC’s Motion To Compel”) came on for hearing before this Court on November 15, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. Victor Viramontes appeared for Plaintiff EEOC; Robert Clough appeared for Plaintiff-Intervenors; and Christopher Yeh appeared for Defendants. The Court, having reviewed the briefs and heard arguments, finds as follows: With regard to NCLA’s Motion To Compel, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. By November 29, 2007, Plaintiff-Intervenors Al-
2.

Mlhany, Almraisi, and Yahia must send letters to the cell phone carriers with whom they had accounts in the Summer of 2004. A copy of the letters shall be sent simultaneously to Defendants’ counsel. In those letters, Al-Mlhany, Almraisi, and Yahia shall request that all of their cell phone records for the period covering June 1, 2004 through August 31, 2004 be mailed by the carrier as soon as possible to both Intervenors’ counsel and Defendants’ counsel. NCLA’s request for reasonable expenses is DENIED.
With regard to EEOC’s Motion To Compel, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: With regard to EEOC’s requests #1 and 2 (regarding corporate relationships), those requests are vague and overly broad and do not warrant further discovery at this time. With regard to EEOC’s requests #4 and 5 (financial condition), the respective defendants, as identified in those requests, shall submit a financial statement subject to a protective order. With regard to EEOC’s request #34 (personnel file), the third-party personnel file shall be produced subject to a protective order. Defendants shall prepare the abovedescribed protective orders for the parties’ stipulation and/or the Court’s approval.
Defendants shall produce and serve to EEOC (1) the financial statements/summary for NCL, America, Inc. and NCL, Corporation Ltd., and (2)
3.

Eric Tedtoatoa’s personnel file no later than December 17, 2007, subject to the
Court’s approval of the stipulated protective order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Barry M. Kurren United States Magistrate Judge Dated: December 5, 2007
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ ANNA Y. PARK, ESQ. CONNIE LIEM, ESQ. PETER LAURA, ESQ. VICTOR MIRAMONTES, ESQ. ANGELA MORRISON, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
/s/ DAPHNE E. BARBEE, ESQ. THOMAS M. GEISNESS, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors Abdullah Yahia, Ahmed Almlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, and Samed Kassam
_________________________________________________________________
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES [DOCKET 158]; AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION’S MOTION VIA LETTER BRIEF TO COMPEL DISCOVERY U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Abdullah Yahia,et al. vs. NCL America Inc., et al.; Civil No. CV 06-00451 SPK BMK
4.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

AHMED ALMRAISI, NAGI A.

)

ALZIAM, SAMED KASSAM, MUTHANA )

A. SHAIBI, NORK YAFAIE,

)

ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED AL-

)

MLHANY,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

)

vs.

)

)

NCL AMERICA, INC., NORWEGIAN )

CRUISE LINE, Ltd., and

)

NORWEGIAN CORPORATION Ltd., )

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________ )

)

ASHMED ALMLHANY,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NCL AMERICA, INC., NORWEGIAN )

CRUISE LINE, Ltd., and

)

NORWEGIAN CORPORATION Ltd., )

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 06-00451 SOM/BMK CIVIL NO. 07-00372 SOM/BMK (consolidated)
ORDER DENYING NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS, GRANTING NCL CORPORATION LTD.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING BOTH OF EEOC’S COUNTER MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. AND NCL CORPORATION LTD., AND DENYING BOTH OF PLAINTIFFSINTERVENORS’ COUNTER MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. AND NCL CORPORATION LTD.

ORDER DENYING NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS, GRANTING NCL CORPORATION LTD.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING BOTH OF EEOC’S COUNTER MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. AND NCL CORPORATION LTD., AND DENYING BOTH OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS’ COUNTER MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. AND NCL CORPORATION LTD.

I.

INTRODUCTION.

Before the court are two motions for summary judgment,

four counter motions for summary judgment, and one motion for

Rule 11 sanctions. This is an employment discrimination case.

In July 2004, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, who worked on the MS Pride

of Aloha cruise ship, were discharged or constructively

discharged. The former employees allege that they were fired

without good cause because of their employer’s bias against their

national origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim).

Pride of Aloha is directly owned and operated by NCL

America, Inc. (“NCL America”). NCL Corporation Ltd. (“NCL

Corp.”) owns Arrasas Limited (“Arrasas”), which owns NCL America

Holdings, Inc. (“NCL Holdings”), which in turn owns NCL America.1

In April of 2004, Arrasas sold Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.

(“Norwegian Cruise Line”), whose functions were thereafter

performed by NCL (Bahamas), Ltd. (“NCL Bahamas”).

On August 22, 2006, Plaintiff Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a complaint against NCL

America, Norwegian Cruise Line, and NCL Corp. (collectively,

“Defendants”), alleging employment discrimination in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On November 22, 2006, the

discharged employees intervened as Plaintiffs-Intervenors

1 The court refers to this corporate organization as the NCL Corporate Structure.
2

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 Plaintiffs-Intervenors allege unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-2. In addition, PlaintiffsIntervenors claim intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Norwegian Cruise Line’s present motion for summary judgment (“Cruise Line Motion”) argues that claims by the EEOC and Plaintiffs-Intervenors (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against Norwegian Cruise Line cannot proceed because Norwegian Cruise Line ceased to be part of the NCL Corporate Structure before the alleged discrimination and because Plaintiffs-Intervenors failed to exhaust administrative remedies against Norwegian Cruise Line. Norwegian Cruise Line also moves for Rule 11 sanctions, claiming that Plaintiffs’ claims against Norwegian Cruise Line were “not based on reasonable inquiry” and “lack evidentiary support.” Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and/or its Counsel and Plaintiffs-Intervenors and/or their Counsel (Nov. 27, 2007) (“Rule 11 Motion”) at 2.
2 On July 12, 2007, Ashmed Almlhany, a PlaintiffIntervenor, filed a separate action against Defendants alleging unlawful discrimination (Civ. No. 07-00372). On September 17, 2007, Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren consolidated Almlhany’s action with Civ. No. 06-00451.
3

Plaintiffs respond that Norwegian Cruise Line is just the former name for NCL Bahamas, which is in the NCL Corporate Structure and which allegedly participated in the discriminatory acts, and that Plaintiffs-Intervenors did exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff EEOC’s Opposition and Counter-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Response to Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Limited’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Jan. 4, 2008) (“EEOC Opp’n to Norwegian Cruise Line”). The EEOC and Plaintiffs-Intervenors also separately counter move for summary judgment. See Plaintiffs-Intervenor’s Opposition to Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant NCL Corporation, Ltd’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Jan. 4, 2004) (“Plaintiffs-Intervenor Opp’n”) at 1.
Complicating the motion practice, the EEOC filed a motion to amend the Complaint, seeking to add NCL Bahamas as a defendant.3 At the hearing on the present dispositive motions, held on January 22, 2008, Plaintiffs stated that, if Magistrate Judge Kurren allowed Plaintiffs to add NCL Bahamas as a defendant, Plaintiffs would withdraw all claims against Norwegian Cruise Line. On January 25, 2008, Magistrate Judge Kurren granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend.4 Accordingly, Norwegian
3 Plaintiffs-Intervenors joined in that motion, set for hearing before Magistrate Judge Kurren.
4 As the parties agree that the allegations of the Amended Complaint do not otherwise differ from the allegations of
4

Cruise Line’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the EEOC’s and Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ counter motions have been rendered moot and are denied on that ground.
With regard to Norwegian Cruise Line’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions, the court concludes that Norwegian Cruise Line has not demonstrated that Plaintiffs had no reasonable basis for filing claims against Norwegian Cruise Line. Norwegian Cruise Line’s motion for sanctions is denied.
In a separate motion for summary judgment (“NCL Corp. Motion”), NCL Corp. asserts that (1) NCL Corp. was not involved in the discriminatory conduct, (2) NCL Corp. is not subject to Title VII because it has no employees, and (3) Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies under Title VII. Plaintiffs respond that NCL Corp. is a proper defendant because (1) NCL Corp. participated in the discriminatory conduct, (2) NCL Corp. is part of an integrated enterprise that includes subsidiary corporations with thousands of employees, and (3) NCL Corp. participated in the administrative proceedings. Plaintiff EEOC’s Opposition and Counter-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Response to Defendant NCL Corp. Ltd’s Motion for Summary Judgment
the original Complaint, this court deems the present dispositive motions to apply to the Amended Complaint. References to the “Complaint” here encompass the Amended Complaint unless otherwise indicated or obvious from the context.
5

(Jan. 4, 2008) (“EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp.”). Again, the EEOC and

Plaintiffs-Intervenors counter move for summary judgment.

Because the court determines that NCL Corp. does not

qualify as an employer under Title VII and because, in any event,

there is no evidence that NCL Corp. participated in the

discriminatory conduct, the court grants NCL Corp.’s motion for

summary judgment and denies the EEOC’s and Plaintiffs-

Intervenors’ counter motions for summary judgment against NCL

Corp.

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS.

The court reviews the motions under the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure as amended effective December 1, 2007. As the

amendments to the rules in issue here were stylistic only, the

court relies on authorities construing the previous version of

the applicable rules.

A.

Summary Judgment.

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that summary judgment shall be granted when “the

pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and

any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Porter v. Cal.

Dep’t of Corr., 383 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004); Addisu v.

Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). Summary

6

judgment must be granted against a party that fails to demonstrate facts to establish an essential element at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The burden initially falls upon the moving party to identify for the court those “portions of the materials on file that it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323).
“When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (footnote omitted). The nonmoving party may not rely on the mere allegations in the pleadings and instead must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Porter v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 419 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986)).
“A genuine dispute arises if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” California v. Campbell, 319 F.3d 1161, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003); accord Addisu, 198 F.3d at 1134 (“There must be enough doubt for a ‘reasonable trier of fact’ to find for plaintiffs in order to defeat the summary judgment motion.”). “A scintilla of
7

evidence or evidence that is merely colorable or not

significantly probative does not present a genuine issue of

material fact.” Addisu, 198 F.3d at 1134 (citation omitted).

“[I]f the factual context makes the non-moving party’s claim

implausible, that party must come forward with more persuasive

evidence than would otherwise be necessary to show that there is

a genuine issue for trial.” Cal. Arch’l Bldg. Prods., Inc. v.

Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir. 1987)

(citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587).

B.

Rule 11 Sanctions.

Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

requires that any party filing with the court must “certif[y]

that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and

belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the

circumstances [that]”:

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; [and]

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery . . .”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). If the court determines that Rule 11(b)

has been violated, “the court may impose an appropriate sanction

8

on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is

responsible for the violation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).

“Rule 11 imposes a duty on attorneys to certify that

they have conducted a reasonable inquiry and have determined that

any papers filed with the court are well grounded in fact . .

. .” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990).

Thus, before filing a complaint, a party has an “affirmative

duty” to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law of

the case. See Lloyd v. Schlag, 884 F.2d 409, 412 (9th Cir.

1989). The conduct of the signing party is “one of objective

reasonableness under the circumstances.” Hudson v. Moore Bus.

Forms, Inc., 836 F.2d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 1987).

III.

BACKGROUND FACTS.

Pride of Aloha is owned and operated by NCL America,

which is part of the NCL Corporate Structure. Deposition of

Robert Kritzman (Mar. 15, 2007) (“Kritzman Dep.”) at 167. Under

the NCL Corporate Structure, NCL Corp. owns Arrasas, which owns

NCL America Holdings, which in turn owns NCL America. Id.

Norwegian Cruise Line was sold to Inter-Ocean Limited, which is,

according to Defendants, outside the NCL Corporate Structure.

Declaration of Robert Kritzman (Jan. 2, 2007) (“Kritzman Decl.”)

at ¶ 7. Norwegian Cruise Line says NCL Bahamas then assumed what

had been Norwegian Cruise Line’s functions.

9

Defendants say that NCL Corp. only “holds shares of another company” and does not have any employees, although it does have officers. Deposition of Colin Veitch (Nov. 9, 2007) (“Veitch Dep.”) at 6, 26-27. Defendants also assert that NCL Corp. does not own or operate any cruise ships, including the Pride of Aloha. Kritzman Dep. at 165.
Although in its 2007 SEC Report, NCL Corp. states, “We are one of the leading cruise ship operators in the world . . . . [and] we currently operate 14 ships,” that report defines “we” as including NCL Corp. and its subsidiaries. Ex. 59 (attached to EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp.).
NCL America maintains its principal business office on 700 Bishop Street in Honolulu, Hawaii. Kritzman Dep. at 14; Veitch Dep. at 12. NCL Corp. and NCL Bahamas share a corporate address of 7665 Corporate Center Drive in Miami, Florida. Veitch Dep. at 11; Ex. 13 (attached to EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp.). In June 2004, NCL America also listed its mailing address as 7665 Corporate Center Drive, Miami, Florida, with the Florida Department of State. Ex. 15 (attached to EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp.).
In 2004, Colin Veitch served as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board for NCL America. Kritzman Dep. at 20; Veitch Dep. at 11. During that same time, Robert Kritzman was Executive Vice President and Managing Director of the Hawaii
10

operations of NCL America. Kritzman Dep. at 18-19. In July
2004, NCL Bahamas employed William Hamlin as Executive Vice-
President Fleet Operations, George Chesney as the Vice-President
of Human Resources, and Matthew Lewis as Director of Security.
Deposition of Hamlin (Nov. 9, 2007) (“Hamlin Dep.”) at 8; Chesney
Deposition (Nov. 9, 2007) (“Chesney Dep.”) at 7; Lewis Deposition
(Nov. 7, 2007) (“Lewis Dep.”) at 16.
According to a February 13, 2007, Hoovers Report,
Kritzman, Veitch, and Hamlin were officers with NCL Corp in
2007.5 Ex. 13 (attached to EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp.); Kritzman
Dep. at 162-63.
From April to July 2004, Plaintiffs-Intervenors were
crewmembers on the Pride of Aloha, a cruise ship based in Hawaii.
Plaintiff-Intervenor Opp’n at 2. In July 2004, Plaintiffs-
5 Plaintiffs contend that the individuals who participated in the termination decision concurrently held positions with NCL America, NCL Corp., and/or Norwegian Cruise Line. From the record, it is unclear whether or how these individuals were affiliated with NCL Corp. during the July 2004 termination period. Plaintiffs submit various documents, including a 2007 SEC report, that indicates that these individuals held concurrent officer positions with these three companies in 2007. Plaintiffs point to no evidence suggesting whether or how these individuals were affiliated with NCL Corp. in 2004. See also NCL Corp. Reply at 9 (“The only persons who straddled the Corp and NCL America entities in 2004 are Veitch and Kritzman. . . . The other persons the EEOC identifies as hav[ing] a role in this matter (Lewis, Chesney, and Hamlin) were employees of NCL (Bahamas)). The court will assume for the purposes of this summary judgment motion, however, that the individuals who participated in the termination decision also held officer positions with NCL Corp. in 2004.
11

Intervenors were discharged or constructively discharged, allegedly due to racial and/or religious animus that became evident in a “security threat” investigation. EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp. at 2-3.6
Plaintiffs-Intervenors allege that Pride of Aloha staff contacted Lewis with security concerns regarding some of the Plaintiffs-Intervenors in July 2004. Lewis contacted the FBI, which investigated the matter. While the FBI investigation was proceeding, Veitch, Hamlin, Chesney, and Lewis allegedly met in Vietch’s office in Miami. Kritzman joined the meeting by conference call from the Honolulu office of NCL America. Plaintiffs claim that Kritzman, Hamlin, Chesney, and Lewis decided to fire Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Id. at 10-11; Kritzman Dep. at 160. Veitch, the President of NCL America, agreed with that decision. Veitch Dep. at 54-56, 58; Kritzman Dep. at 16061. For his part, Kritzman says he probably thought he should discuss the terminations with Veitch because Veitch was the President of NCL America. Kritzman Dep. at 129.
On July 24, 2004, Kritzman instructed Pride of Aloha staff to fire six of the Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Kritzman Dep. at 45-46.
6 All page citations from the EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp. refer to Document Number 242, filed on January 15, 2008, subsequent to the court’s request that the EEOC refile its papers in accordance with the format requirements of Local Rule 7.5.
12

That same day, the FBI boarded the Pride of Aloha as part of its investigation, ultimately concluding that none of the Plaintiffs-Intervenors posed any security threat. Even after learning of the FBI determination, Pride of Aloha staff remained committed to firing Plaintiffs-Intervenors and did fire them. Deposition of Joseph Gargiulo (Mar. 6, 2007) (“Gargiulo Dep.”) at 56-62.
The following day, on July 25, 2004, a seventh Plaintiff-Intervenor who had not been included in the FBI investigation, left, having allegedly been constructively discharged.
Plaintiffs-Intervenors filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC against NCL America. Ex. 2 (attached to EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp.). The EEOC investigated and found that PlaintiffsIntervenors had been discharged and/or constructively discharged on the basis of their national origin and/or religion. Ex. 3 (attached to EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp.). NCL America received notice of the charges of discrimination and the EEOC’s determination. Kritzman Dep. at 70-71. Veitch said the NCL Corporate Structure’s Miami General Counsel’s office should have been, but was not, promptly told that EEOC charges had been filed. Veitch Dep. at 66. The EEOC invited NCL America to conciliate, but no settlement was reached. EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp. at 5. This action ensued.
13

IV.

ANALYSIS.

The motions now before this court fall into two groups:

motions relating to Norwegian Cruise Line and motions relating to

NCL Corp.

A.

Norwegian Cruise Line.

On December 14, 2007, Plaintiffs moved for leave to

amend their Complaint to add NCL Bahamas as a defendant. Arguing

that Norwegian Cruise Line was a former name for NCL Bahamas, and

that NCL Bahamas was liable to them, Plaintiffs stated at the

hearing on these dispositive motions that, if allowed to add NCL

Bahamas, they would dismiss all claims against Norwegian Cruise

Line. As Plaintiffs are being allowed to add NCL Bahamas, their

counter motions and Norwegian Cruise Line’s motion are moot and

are denied on that ground. The court does not here decide the

issues of fees and costs raised orally at the hearing on the

dispositive motions.

That leaves the Rule 11 motion. Norwegian Cruise Line

argues that Plaintiffs “filed claims against Norwegian Cruise

Line that were not based on reasonable inquiry and that lack

evidentiary support.” Motion for Rule 11 at 2. Norwegian Cruise

Line also contends that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust

administrative remedies. Id. at 7.

Rule 11 sanctions should be imposed if a paper is filed

for an “improper purpose” or is “frivolous.” Townsend v. Holman

14

Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc). A filing is frivolous if it is “both baseless and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry.” Id. The standard employed in assessing improper purpose and frivolousness is reasonableness. G.C. & K.B. Inv., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1109 (9th Cir. 2003). Reasonableness is an objective standard and does not depend on the subjective intent of the filing party. Id. “The ‘reasonable man’ against which conduct is tested is a competent attorney admitted to practice before ths district court.” Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 830 (9th Cir. 1986).
There is a factual dispute about whether this case falls under an exception to the administrative exhaustion requirement. See Nowick v. Gammell, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1036 (D. Haw. 2004). Moreover, the corporate organization of the numerous related business entities is sufficiently difficult to decipher that the court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs’ preComplaint inquiry was not reasonable or competent. Plaintiffs were entitled to rely on court filings and corporate disclosure reports when they named Norwegian Cruise Line as a defendant, and these are at least ambiguous.
The court concludes that Norwegian Cruise Line does not establish that Plaintiffs lacked a reasonable basis for believing that Norwegian Cruise Line fell under one of the exceptions to
15

administrative exhaustion requirements. Nor does Norwegian

Cruise Line show that Plaintiffs had no reasonable basis for

alleging that Norwegian Cruise Line participated in the alleged

discriminatory conduct as NCL Bahamas. Norwegian Cruise Line’s

Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is denied.

B.

NCL Corp.

NCL Corp. moves for summary judgment, arguing that

(1) NCL Corp. was not involved in the discriminatory conduct,

(2) NCL Corp. is not subject to Title VII because it has no

employees, and (3) Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative

remedies against it. NCL Corp. Motion.7

7 NCL Corp. also raises numerous procedural grounds for striking EEOC’s Opposition such as noncompliance with local rules, untimely and duplicative counter motions, and failure to accurately cite exhibits. NCL Corp. Reply 1-5. On January 14, 2008, the court asked the EEOC to refile its papers in compliance with local rules. The court also further discussed violation of local rules with the EEOC at the hearing, noting that monetary sanctions could be imposed if the EEOC continued to violate local rules.
Nothing in the Local Rules or the Rule 16 Scheduling Order prohibits the filing of counter motions after the dispositive motions deadline, so long as the counter motions are filed in timely response to timely filed originating motions.
Finally, although the court does not strike the EEOC’s papers, the court agrees with Defendants that the EEOC’s record references are woefully deficient. Factual assertions often mischaracterize exhibits, or reference is made to exhibit pages that are not actually attached. The court has been forced to spend a great deal of time trying to determine whether there really is support for the EEOC’s assertions. The court will not continue to do this and is prepared to strike further filings that are defective in this regard.
16

This court grants NCL Corp. summary judgment on all

claims against it. In the first instance, NCL Corp. does not

qualify as an employer for Title VII purposes, when viewed as an

independent corporation. Moreover, there is no evidence that NCL

Corp. participated directly in the alleged discriminatory

conduct. The court declines to treat NCL Corp. as part of an

integrated enterprise that includes one or more subsidiaries that

may have discriminated against Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Even if

the integrated enterprise test did apply here, Plaintiffs do not

show that its requirements are met here.

1.

The Record Does Not Support Claims of Direct

Discrimination by NCL Corp.

As a threshold matter, the court must determine

whether Title VII even applies to NCL Corp. Title VII makes it

unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any individual

with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or

privileges of employment because of such individual’s race,

color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

Title VII only covers employers with “fifteen or more employees.”

42 U.S.C. § 2000e.

There is no evidence that NCL Corp., if viewed as a

corporation standing on its own, had fifteen employees. NCL

Corp. claims that it had and has no employees. Veitch Dep. 6,

26. NCL Corp. says it is only a holding company, not an employer

for the purposes of Title VII. NCL Corp. Motion at 10-11. This

17

court questions the basis on which NCL Corp. determines its lack of employees. NCL Corp. relies for that determination on a factual assertion by its President. The problem with this assertion is that whether persons (such as officers) associated with NCL Corp. qualify as employees is not a purely factual question that the President may attest to. But even ignoring the President’s assertion, the record does not establish that NCL Corp. ever had at least fifteen employees. Certainly there is no evidence of fifteen NCL Corp. officers, and there is no reference to any nonofficer employee. NCL Corp. thus cannot be sued under Title VII when viewed as an independent corporation.
Nor can Plaintiffs proceed against NCL Corp. under other theories, such as state law, which do not have a fifteenemployee requirement. The impediment to proceeding against NCL Corp. is that Plaintiffs advance no evidence that NCL Corp. was involved in discriminating against Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Certainly, NCL Corp. cannot be charged with discrimination simply because a subsidiary allegedly discriminated. When a subsidiary hires employees, there is a strong presumption that the parent company is not the employer. Johnson v. Flowers Indus., Inc., 814 F.2d 978, 980 (4th Cir. 1987); accord Watson v. Gulf and W. Indus., 650 F.2d 990, 993 (9th Cir. 1981).
Given the absence of evidence of direct discrimination by NCL Corp. itself, and Plaintiffs’ failure to overcome the
18

presumption that NCL Corp. is not the employer of its

subsidiary’s personnel, no claim against NCL Corp. survives.8

Plaintiffs protest that NCL Corp. should be held

jointly liable under one of the exceptions enunciated in Nowick,

351 F. Supp. 2d 1025, decided by Judge Alan Kay of this district.

The court notes that Nowick set forth exceptions to the

administrative exhaustion requirement, not exceptions to when a

parent company can be held jointly liable with its subsidiary.

Id. at 1036-37 (listing exceptions to when a party not named in

an EEOC administrative charge may be named as a defendant in a

lawsuit). Nowick did discuss how indirect employers can be held

liable under Title VII, noting that the Ninth Circuit “extended

Title VII coverage to indirect employers when those employers

discriminated against and interfered with the employees’

relationship with their employers.” Anderson v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n,

336 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir. 2003). But NCL Corp. is not an

employer for Title VII purposes, given the lack of evidence that

it had at least fifteen employees in 2004.

2.

The Record Does Not Support Treating NCL

Corp. as Part of An Integrated Enterprise.

Plaintiffs argue that, even if NCL Corp. is not liable

when viewed as an independent corporation, it is so integrated

8 This conclusion is buttressed by the same facts and analysis that cause this court to rule that Plaintiffs do not satisfy the four-part integrated enterprise test, even assuming it applies here.
19

with its subsidiaries that it shares their liability under Morgan v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 884 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1989). EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp. at 25. Plaintiffs point to recent SEC filings as evidence that NCL Corp. operated as an integrated enterprise with its subsidiaries, and that the integrated enterprise had between 10,000 to 14,0000 employees from 2004 to 2006. Id. at 25-26.9 Thus, Plaintiffs argue that NCL Corp. more than meets Title VII’s fifteen-employee requirement.
Plaintiffs cannot proceed under this theory unless the integrated enterprise test applies in this case. In Safeway Stores, the Ninth Circuit held that, under the integrated enterprise test, multiple businesses could be treated as a single employer for Title VII purposes if they had “(1) interrelated operations, (2) common management, (3) centralized control of labor relations, and (4) common ownership or financial control.” Safeway Stores, 884 F.2d at 1213 (citing Childs v. Local 18, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 719 F.2d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir. 1983)). This integrated enterprise test, however, only applies in certain contexts.
The Ninth Circuit has clarified that this test applies when an allegedly discriminatory employer, not covered by Title
9 The SEC excerpt that purportedly establishes the number of NCL Corp. employees--Bates number EEOC 0924--is missing from the EEOC’s filings. Even assuming that the omitted page sets out the number of employees, and considering that purported fact, the analysis is the same.
20

VII because it has fewer than fifteen employees, needs to be
integrated with another employer to fulfill Title VII’s fifteen-
employee requirement:
A plaintiff with an otherwise cognizable Title VII claim against an employer with less than 15 employees may assert that the employer is so interconnected with another employer that the two form an integrated enterprise, and that collectively this enterprise meets the 15-employee minimum standard. We use the integrated enterprise test to judge the magnitude of interconnectivity for determining statutory coverage.
Anderson, 336 F.3d at 929. Indeed, the history of how the
integrated enterprise test has been applied in the Ninth Circuit
confirms that the test is only employed to determine statutory
coverage under Title VII if there is not already an otherwise
qualified employer subject to the suit.
In Safeway Stores, the plaintiff’s employer, Safeway,
was not sued for discrimination. Instead, the plaintiff sued a
federal credit union associated with Safeway. The credit union
had fewer than fifteen employees. The Ninth Circuit applied the
integrated enterprise test to determine whether the credit union
was so integrated with Safeway that it qualified as an employer
for Title VII purposes. Safeway Stores, 884 F.2d 1211, 1212-13.
Similarly, in Kang v. U. Lim America, Inc., 296 F.3d
810 (9th Cir. 2002), the court employed the integrated enterprise
test to determine the applicability of Title VII to a direct
21

employer with only six employees. The court applied the test to integrate the direct employer with a related subsidiary that had more than fifty employees “for purposes of Title VII coverage.” Id. at 814-15; see also Herman v. United Bhd. of Carpenters, 60 F.3d 1375, 1383 (9th Cir. 1995) (applying the integrated enterprise test when an enterprise did not meet the minimum employee requirement under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act); Childs, 719 F.2d at 1382 (applying the integrated enterprise test “to determine whether two employing entities constitute a single employer for purposes of jurisdiction under Title VII”).
The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Anderson is the Ninth Circuit’s clearest indication that the integrated enterprise test is inapplicable when there is an entity that indisputably qualifies as an employer under Title VII even without considering integration with a related entity. The defendant, Pacific Maritime Association (“PMA”), was a nonprofit association made up of companies that employed the plaintiffs. Anderson, 336 F.3d at 925. For reasons that are not clear, the plaintiffs dropped their direct employers from the lawsuit, although those were the entities that had allegedly discriminated against them. That left PMA as a defendant. PMA had enough employees of its own to qualify as an employer under Title VII. However, PMA had not directly employed the plaintiffs. The
22

plaintiffs invoked the integrated enterprise test, seeking to hold PMA liable for the actions of its member employers. Id. at 928. The Ninth Circuit held the test inapplicable because the test was not necessary to trigger Title VII liability: “Here, PMA does not dispute that it employs at least 15 employees. Because this places PMA within Title VII’s statutory coverage as an ‘employer,’ the integrated enterprise test is inapplicable.” Id. at 929 (footnote omitted).
Analogously, a recent decision by another judge in this district concluded that the integrated enterprise test was inapplicable when there was already a business that qualified as an employer under Title VII. In Nowick, the plaintiff’s direct employer already qualified as an employer under Title VII. The plaintiff invoked the integrated enterprise test in an attempt to hold a limited partner jointly liable, but Judge Alan Kay declined to apply the test. Judge Kay, citing Anderson, said, “Here, there is no question that MLVO, Plaintiff’s direct employer, qualified as an employer under Title VII. Thus, the integrated enterprise test is not applicable in this case.” Nowick, 351 F. Supp. 2d at 1034 (internal citation omitted).
NCL America, the owner and operator of Pride of Aloha, qualifies as an employer for Title VII purposes. Because there is already an employer for Title VII purposes, Plaintiffs cannot invoke the integrated enterprise test to bring NCL Corp. under
23

Title VII as an additional employer. Unlike cases in which the Ninth Circuit has applied the integrated enterprise test, this case involves an employer, NCL America, with at least fifteen employees. No integrated enterprise is needed to meet the jurisdictional requirement of Title VII. The integrated enterprise test simply does not apply here to render NCL Corp. an employer integrated with its subsidiaries.
This court notes that, in the Ninth Circuit, the integrated enterprise test has more limited use than in some other circuits. The Ninth Circuit has stated that the integrated enterprise test “does not determine joint liability as the parties suggest, but instead determines whether a defendant can meet the statutory criteria of an ‘employer’ for Title VII applicability.” Id.; see also EEOC v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 351 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2003); cf. Cook v. Arrowsmith Shelburne, Inc., 69 F.3d 1235, 1240-41 (2d Cir. 1999)(adopting the integrated employer test and listing other circuits that have also adopted the test in the context of parent-subsidiary relationships). The Ninth Circuit has not to date applied the integrated enterprise test to establish joint liability.
Thus, in Nowick, Judge Kay noted, “Although other Circuits have used the integrated enterprise test to establish the liability of a parent company for a subsidiary’s violation of Title VII, the Ninth Circuit has not done so, and the Court
24

declines to extend the application of the test here.” 351

F. Supp. 2d at 1034 n.28 (internal citation omitted). Judge

Kay’s limitation on use of the integrated enterprise test is

consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s application of the test to

only those situations in which an employer does not qualify on

its own under Title VII.

The integrated enterprise test is inapplicable to NCL

Corp. for either meeting Title VII’s fifteen-employee requirement

or establishing joint liability.

3.

Even If the Integrated Enterprise Test

Applies, the Evidence Does Not Show That NCL

Corp. and NCL America Are an Integrated

Enterprise.

Even if the integrated enterprise test does apply here,

Plaintiffs do not satisfy the four-part integrated enterprise

test.

As noted above, the Ninth Circuit has identified four

factors that indicate that businesses constitute an integrated

enterprise: “(1) interrelated operations, (2) common management,

(3) centralized control of labor relations, and (4) common

ownership or financial control.” Safeway Stores, 884 F.2d at

1213. Cf. Johnson, 814 F.2d at 980 (“A parent company is an

employer of a subsidiary’s personnel only if it controls the

subsidiary’s employment decisions or so completely dominates the

subsidiary that the two companies are the same entity.”).

25

With respect to the interrelated operations factor, Plaintiffs point to the common corporate address, common marketing and customer rewards plans, and common human resources program (including employee evaluations, employee benefits, and personnel files) allegedly shared by NCL Corp., NCL America, and NCL Bahamas. This court questions whether NCL Corp., which purports to be a holding company, had any marketing or rewards program at all, much less a “common” one. Even putting that aside, and accepting Plaintiffs’ assertions, this is scant evidence of interrelated operations.
Plaintiffs next address the common management factor, asserting that the same officers oversaw operations throughout the NCL Corporate Structure, including NCL America’s employment decisions. Plaintiffs say that “NCL executives” involved in the termination decision of Plaintiffs-Intervenors “functioned as NCL-wide officers” and that these individuals “simultaneously held official positions with all three entities involved in the this suit.” EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp. at 26; see also id. at 21 (“The NCL officers make decisions for the NCL entities regardless of which NCL entity employs them on paper. In practice, and under the law, these NCL entities operate as a single entity. Thus all are appropriate Defendants, and are all liable for discriminating against the . . . Charging Parties.”); id. at 24 (arguing that NCL Corp. participated in the discriminatory
26

conduct because “all of the NCL company executives exercised authority across all of these NCL companies, even if they did not have a title with the corporate parent”). Plaintiffs’ assertion is more argument than evidence. While individual officers wore multiple hats among the related corporations, it does not follow that the management was unified or “common.” Plaintiffs simply conclude that the overlapping of certain officers establishes “common management.”
Plaintiffs are particularly weak in establishing the third factor, centralized control of labor relations. Plaintiffs argue that NCL Corp. was in the business of operating cruise ships and that, when officers of NCL Corp. approved of, or consented to, Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ discharges, these officers were acting in their capacity as NCL Corp. employees. But, because NCL Corp. was a holding company, not a cruise ship operator, it makes little sense to assume that officers holding concurrent positions with NCL Corp., NCL America, and NCL Bahamas were acting in their capacities as NCL Corp. officers in deciding to fire NCL America employees. Plaintiffs present no evidence that the NCL Corp. individuals indeed wore their NCL Corp. hats in making any labor-relation decisions. See Lusk v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., 129 F.3d 773, 779 (5th Cir. 1997) (noting that employees may change hats to act for separate corporations and
27

requiring claimants to “point to evidence” that officers were wearing their parent corporation hat).
What is particularly telling is Plaintiffs’ focus on the coordination between NCL America and NCL Bahamas, rather than between NCL Corp. and any subsidiary. See e.g., EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp. at 28-29 (arguing that there was centralized control of labor relations because NCL America and NCL Bahamas employed similar policies, and Chesney, an NCL Bahamas employee, maintained the computerized crew scheduling system); see also Veitch Dep. at 77-78 (noting that the NCL team and its subsidiaries use the same equal employment opportunity policy, which is likely maintained by the Human Resources Department of NCL Bahamas). To the extent Plaintiffs are relying on the administration of common employee benefits to all of NCL Corp.’s subsidiaries, the court does not find this factor determinative, as “[i]t is common for parent companies and their subsidiaries to have common pension and benefits plans in order to achieve certain economic efficiencies, and courts have held this type of action is not evidence of single employer status.” EEOC v. ConWay, Inc., 2007 WL 2610367, at *4 (D. Or. Sept. 4, 2007) (citing cases).
Nor are Plaintiffs persuasive in citing to a 2007 SEC annual report filed by NCL Corp. stating that “we” operate cruise ships. EEOC Opp’n to NCL Corp. at 5. This statement does not
28

merge NCL Corp., a holding company, with its operational subsidiaries. As pointed out at the hearing, that SEC Report covered NCL Corp. and its subsidiaries, so the reference to what “we” do was not necessarily a statement of what NCL Corp. does or did. It does not appear that every statement in the SEC Report can be attributed to NCL Corp., as well as to each of its subsidiaries.
Plaintiffs try to bolster their position on centralized control of labor relations by pointing to testimony by Veitch, President of NCL Corp., that Plaintiffs say establishes that NCL America reported to NCL Corp. on amendments to personnel policies. The testimony referred to at page 28 of the EEOC’s opposition to NCL Corp.’s summary judgment motion does not clearly state what Plaintiffs claim, and it is difficult to resolve the ambiguities in the testimony because the preceding pages are not attached. The testimony could conceivably refer to the expectation that NCL America officers had to report to Veitch in his capacity as NCL America’s CEO, not as NCL Corp.’s President.
The fourth factor–-common ownership or financial control–-is addressed by Plaintiffs with similarly problematic evidence. Plaintiffs note that NCL Corp. owns its subsidiaries, NCL America and NCL Bahamas, and that Kritzman, an NCL America officer, needed approval from Veitch for large capital
29

expenditures. This proves little as Veitch was NCL America’s CEO, and he may have given approval in that capacity, not as NCL Corp.’s President. Plaintiffs are thus left with little more than a parent-subsidiary relationship. This kind of evidence would make every parent and subsidiary an integrated enterprise.
It is perhaps to avoid such a result that the Ninth Circuit has not adopted the integrated enterprise test for parent-subsidiary relationships. The Fifth Circuit has discussed the subject in depth in Lusk, 129 F.3d 773. The court applied the test to claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).10 FoxMeyer Drug was a wholly owned subsidiary of FoxMeyer Corporation, a holding company with no employees. FoxMeyer Corporation was, in turn, held by National Intergroup, Inc. (“NII”), a holding company with its own employees. NII was affiliated as a parent or subsidiary with numerous other corporations. FoxMeyer Drug, FoxMeyer Corporation, and NII shared the same corporate headquarters. In addition, three individuals--Melvyn Estrin, Abbey Butler, and Thomas Anderson-held officer positions with all three corporations. Id. at 775.
10 Title VII and the ADEA have virtually identical definitions of “employer” and “employee.” See 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e); 29 U.S.C. § 630. Courts have considered interpretations of one of these employment statutes applicable to the other. See, e.g., Fichman v. Media Ctr., 2008 WL 115139, at *4 (9th Cir. 2008); Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1993).
30

An officer holding concurrent positions with FoxMeyer Drug and FoxMeyer Corporation conferred with Estrin and Butler regarding FoxMeyer Drug’s financial performance. As a result of these discussions, the officer ordered executive officers at FoxMeyer Drug and FoxMeyer Corporation to create a plan for reducing the sales force. The plan was approved by Estrin, Butler, and Anderson, and the plaintiffs lost their jobs under the plan. Id. at 776.
The discharged employees brought an action under the ADEA, alleging age discrimination by their direct employer, FoxMeyer Drug. The employees also sued FoxMeyer Corporation and NII, arguing that the three entities constituted a “single employer.” The Fifth Circuit employed a four-part test, identical to the Ninth Circuit’s integrated enterprise test. Compare id. at 777 (listing (1) interrelation of operations, (2) centralized control of labor decisions, (3) common management, and (4) common ownership or financial control as the relevant factors in determining whether two businesses constitute an single employer) with Kang, 296 F.3d at 815 (same). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgement to NII, concluding that there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that NII qualified as a single employer with its subsidiaries under Title VII. Lusk, 129 F.3d at 776.
31

The Fifth Circuit noted that the “doctrine of limited
liability creates a strong presumption that a parent corporation
is not the employer of its subsidiary’s employees.” Id. at 778;
see also Watson, 650 F.2d at 993 (“In the absence of special
circumstances, a parent corporation is not liable for the Title
VII violations of its wholly owned subsidiary.”). Drawing on
this doctrine, the Fifth Circuit set a heightened standard for
employing the four-factor test in the context of parent-
subsidiary relationships.
Common management and ownership are ordinary aspects of a parent-subsidiary relationship. A parent corporation’s possession of a controlling interest in its subsidiary entitles the parent to the normal incidents of stock ownership, such as the right to select directors and set general policies, without forfeiting the protection of limited liability. Thus, courts have recognized that the mere existence of common management and ownership are not sufficient to justify treating a parent corporation and its subsidiary as a single employer. Some nexus to the subsidiary’s daily employment decisions must be shown.
Lusk, 129 F.3d at 778 (internal citations omitted).
Applying this heightened standard, the court noted that
the plaintiffs’ evidence that NII and FoxMeyer Drug had common
management and ownership was not enough to demonstrate single
employer status. Id.
In arguing for single employer status, the plaintiffs
principally relied on their argument that there were interrelated
32

operations between NII and it subsidiaries. The plaintiffs noted

that Anderson, Butler, and Estrin had approved of the alleged

discriminatory termination plan. Id. at 779. The Fifth Circuit

was unpersuaded and pointed to the “well established principle

that directors and officers holding positions with a parent and

its subsidiary can and do ‘change hats’ to represent two

corporations separately, despite their common ownership.” Id.,

quoted in United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 69 (1998).

The court concluded that Anderson, Butler, and Estrin’s

involvement in the alleged discriminatory conduct “tells us

nothing more than that they were acting as the three highest

ranking executives at FoxMeyer Drug.” Id. at 780. Consequently,

the court held that the plaintiffs had failed to produce evidence

sufficient to withstand summary judgment on the issue of whether

NII constituted a single employer with its subsidiaries. Id. at

781. For much the same reasons, this court concludes that

Plaintiffs do not show that NCL Corp. and its subsidiaries are an

integrated enterprise, even assuming the four-factor test applies

here.

V.

CONCLUSION.

Norwegian Cruise Line’s summary judgment motion and the

EEOC’s and Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ companion counter motions are

deemed as moot. Norwegian Cruise Line’s Motion for Rule 11

Sanctions is also denied.

33

The integrated enterprise test is inapplicable to NCL Corp. Even if the integrated enterprise test did apply, Plaintiffs fail to identify a question of fact as to whether NCL Corp. and NCL America constitute an integrated enterprise. Nor is there evidence in the record that NCL Corp. participated in the alleged discriminatory conduct. NCL Corp.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted with respect to all claims against NCL Corp. As a corollary to the granting of NCL Corp.’s motion, the EEOC’s and Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ counter motions are denied.
This order leaves for future adjudication all claims against NCL America, as well as newly alleged claims against NCL Bahamas.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 31, 2008.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway Susan Oki Mollway United States District Judge
EEOC v. NCL America, Inc., et al., Civ. Nos. 06-00451, 07-00372 SOM/BMK; ORDER DENYING NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS, GRANTING NCL CORPORATION LTD.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING BOTH OF EEOC’S COUNTER MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. AND NCL CORPORATION LTD., AND DENYING BOTH OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS’ COUNTER MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. AND NCL CORPORATION LTD.
34

 
 1 ANNA Y. PARK (CA SBN 164242) CONNIE K. LIEM (TX SBN 791113)
2 VICTOR VIRAMONTES (CA SBN 214158) ANGELA D. MORRISON (NV 9630)
3 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
4 Los Angeles District Office 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor
5 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213)894-1083
6 Facsimile: (213) 894-1301 E-mail: lado.legal@eeoc.gov
7

8 Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
9 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
12

13 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

14

)

Plaintiff,

)

15

)

ABDULLAH YAHIA, et. al.,

)

16

)

Plaintiff Intervenors, )

17

)

)

18 v.

)

)

19

)

NCL AMERICA, INC. and NCL

)

20 (BAHAMAS) LTD.,

)

)

21

)

22

Defendants.

)

_________________________________

Civil Action No.’s 06-00451 SOM BMK 07-00432 SOM BMK (Consolidated Cases) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Civil Rights-Employment Discrimination)
The Honorable Susan O. Mollway U.S. District Judge JURY TRIAL DEMAND

23

24

NATURE OF THE ACTION

25

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

26
of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“Title VII”) to correct unlawful employment
27
28 practices on the bases of national origin (Middle-Eastern/Yemeni) and religion

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EEOC v. NCL America, et al

1 (Muslim), and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Parties Abdullah Yahia,

2 Ahmed Al-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork
3
4 Yafaie, Samed Kassem, and other similarly situated individuals.

5

Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

6
“Commission”) alleges that Defendants NCL America, Inc., and NCL (Bahamas)
7
8 Ltd., and (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) subjected the

9 Charging Parties and other similarly situated individuals to unlawful employment
10 practices on the basis of their national origin and religion.1 More specifically,
11
12 Charging Parties Abdullah Yahia, Ahmed Al-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A.

13 Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, and other similarly situated individuals
14
were discharged by Defendants on the basis of their national origin (Middle-
15
16 Eastern/Yemeni) and/or religion (Muslim) in violation of Section 703(a) of Title

17 VII. Further, Charging Party Samed Kassem, and other similarly situated
18
individuals were constructively discharged on the basis of their national origin
19
20 (Middle-Eastern/Yemeni) and/or religion (Muslim) in violation of Section 703(a)

21 of Title VII.

22
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23

24

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

25

26

1 Given the Court’s recent ruling dismissing NCL Corporation Ltd. as a

27 defendant (Doc. #287), EEOC is not waiving any rights regarding any appealable

28 issues with respect to the correct Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

EEOC v. NCL America, et al

2

1 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to

2 § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
3
4 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”) and § 102 of Title I of the Civil Rights

5 Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

6
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed in
7
8 the City and County of Maui, State of Hawaii, and within the jurisdiction of the

9 United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

10
PARTIES
11

12

3. Plaintiff, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the

13 agency of the United States of America charged with the administration,
14
interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring
15
16 this action under §706(f)(l) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 5(f)(l) and (3).

17

4. At all relevant times, Defendant NCL America, Inc., a Delaware

18
corporation, has been continuously doing business within the jurisdiction of the
19

20 United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

21

5. At all relevant times, Defendant NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., a Bermuda

22
corporation, has been continuously doing business within the jurisdiction of the
23

24 United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.2 Along with other entities,

25 NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. oversee NCL America’s operations within the State of
26

27

2 The parties dispute whether NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. is substantially the

28 same company as Norwegian Cruise Line Limited.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

EEOC v. NCL America, et al

3

1 Hawaii. All the corporate entities are hereinafter collectively referred to as

2 “Defendants.”

3

4

6. At all relevant times, all Defendants have continuously been

5 employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of

6
Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b), (g), and (h).

7

8

7. At all relevant times, all Defendants have continuously employed

9 fifteen (15) or more persons.

10
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
11

12

8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Abdullah

13 Yahia, Ahmed Al-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi,
14
Nork Yafaie, and Samed Kassem filed charges with the Commission alleging
15
16 violations of Title VII by Defendants. The Commission issued Letters of

17 Determination finding that these Charging Parties and other similarly situated
18
individuals were discharged on the basis of their national origin (Yemeni/Middle
19
20 Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim). All conditions precedent to the institution of

21 this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
22
9. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Samed
23
24 Kassem filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of

25 Title VII by Defendants. The Commission issued a Letter of Determination finding
26
that Charging Party Samed Kassem was constructively discharged on the basis of
27

28 his national origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim), and that

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

EEOC v. NCL America, et al

4

1 other similarly situated individuals were discharged on the basis of their national

2 origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim). All conditions
3
4 precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

5

10. Since at least July 2004, Defendants have engaged in unlawful

6
employment practices at its Hawaii facility, in violation of §703(a) of Title VII, 42
7
8 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), by discharging the Charging Parties and other similarly

9 situated individuals named above on the basis of their national origin

10
(Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim).
11

12

11. The effect of the actions complained of above has been to deprive

13 Charging Parties Abdullah M. Yahia, Ahmed Al-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi
14
A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Samed Kassem, and other similarly
15
16 situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely

17 affect their status as employees on the basis of their national origin

18
(Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim).
19

20

12. The effect of the actions complained of above has been to deprive

21 Charging Party Samed Kassem, and other similarly situated individuals of equal
22
employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees
23
24 on the basis of their national origin Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion

25 (Muslim).
26
13.
27

The unlawful employment practices complained of above were

28 intentional.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

EEOC v. NCL America, et al

5

1

14. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done

2 with malice and/or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of
3
4 Charging Parties Abdullah Yahia, Ahmed Al-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A.

5 Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Samed Kassem, and other similarly

6
situated individuals.

7

8

15. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ aforesaid acts,

9 Charging Parties Abdullah Yahia, Ahmed Al-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A.

10
Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Samed Kassem, and other similarly
11
12 situated individuals have each suffered emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,

13 loss of employment of life, humiliation and damages, according to proof.
14
16. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ aforesaid acts,
15
16 Charging Parties Abdullah Yahia, Ahmed Al-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A.

17 Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Samed Kassem, and other similarly
18
situated individuals have each suffered a loss of earnings in amounts according to
19
20 proof.

21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

22
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
23

24

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers,

25 successors, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participation with
26
Defendants, from engaging in any employment practice on the basis of national
27

28 origin and religion;

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

EEOC v. NCL America, et al

6

1

B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and

2 programs which prohibit national origin discrimination, religious discrimination,
3
4 and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of national

5 origin or religion, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful

6
employment practices;

7

8

C. Order Defendants to make whole all the Charging Parties and others

9 similarly situated individuals, by providing appropriate back pay and benefits with

10
prejudgment interest, and/or other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the
11
12 effects of their unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to

13 reinstatement and/or front pay and other appropriate relief to be determined at trial;
14
D. Order Defendants to make all the Charging Parties and others
15
16 similarly situated whole by providing compensation for past and future non-

17 pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices complained of
18
above, including but not limited to, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience,
19
20 loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;

21

E. Order Defendants to pay all the Charging Parties and others similarly

22
situated punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct as described
23

24 above, in amounts to be determined at trial;

25

F. Grant such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper in the

26
public interest; and
27

28

G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

EEOC v. NCL America, et al

7

1

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2

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

3 complaint.

4

5

6

7

Respectfully submitted,

8

RONALD S. COOPER

9

General Counsel

10

JAMES LEE

Deputy General Counsel

11

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

12

Associate General Counsel

13

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

14

1801 “L” Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20507

15

16
Dated: February 15, 2008
17
18

BY: /S/ Connie K. Liem ANNA Y. PARK Regional Attorney

19

CONNIE LIEM

Senior Trial Attorney

20

VICTOR VIRAMONTES

21

ANGELA D. MORRISON

Trial Attorneys

22

23

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

EEOC v. NCL America, et al

8

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

AHMED ALMRAISI, NAGI A.

)

ALZIAM, SAMED KASSAM, MUTHANA )

A. SHAIBI, NORK YAFAIE,

)

ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED AL-

)

MLHANY,

)

)

Plaintiffs-Intervenors, )

)

vs.

)

)

NCL AMERICA, INC., and NCL )

(BAHAMAS), LTD.,

)

)

Defendants. )

_____________________________ )

)

)

ASHMED ALMLHANY,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NCL AMERICA, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 06-00451 SOM/BMK CIVIL NO. 07-00372 SOM/BMK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART NCL AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS BY OR ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFINTERVENOR SAMED KASSEM; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS BY THE EEOC AND BY INTERVENORS; ORDER DENYING EEOC’S COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER DENYING BOTH OF DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.’S MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART NCL AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS BY OR ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR SAMED KASSEM; ORDER GRANTING
IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS BY THE EEOC AND BY INTERVENORS; ORDER DENYING EEOC’S COUNTER MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER DENYING BOTH OF DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.’S MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

I.

INTRODUCTION.

In this employment discrimination case, the court has

before it two motions for summary judgment, one counter motion

for summary judgment, and two motions for Rule 11 sanctions.

In 2004, Plaintiffs-Intervenors were employed by the

cruise ship MS Pride of Aloha, which is owned and operated by NCL

America, Inc. (“NCL America”). In July 2004, Plaintiffs-

Intervenors were discharged or constructively discharged,

allegedly based on their national origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern)

and/or religion (Muslim).

On August 22, 2006, Plaintiff Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a complaint against NCL

America, Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., and NCL Corporation Ltd.

(collectively, “Defendants”),1 alleging employment discrimination

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On November

22, 2006, the discharged employees intervened as Plaintiffs-

Intervenors, alleging unlawful discrimination in violation of

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-2. In

1 On February 1, 2008, this court dismissed all claims against NCL Corporation Ltd. See Doc. No. 287. Moreover, the court noted that all claims against Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. had become moot in light of Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to add NCL (Bahamas), Ltd. See id. at 14. On February 15, 2008, Plaintiff EEOC filed an Amended Complaint, naming only NCL America, Inc., and NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., as Defendants. See Doc. No. 300. Also on February 15, 2008, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss with prejudice Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. See Doc. No. 302.
2

addition, Plaintiffs-Intervenors claim intentional infliction of
emotional distress (“IIED”) and/or negligent infliction of
emotional distress (“NIED”). Defendants’2 present motion for summary judgment with
respect to all claims by or on behalf of Plaintiff-Intervenor
Samed Kassem (the “Constructive Discharge Motion”) argues that
(1) Kassem’s constructive discharge termination claim should be
dismissed because there are no triable issues as to whether a
reasonable person in his position would have felt compelled to
leave; (2) the IIED claim should be dismissed as untimely, as not
based on outrageous conduct, and as preempted by section 301 of
the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a);
and (3) the NIED claim should be dismissed as time-barred, as not
supported by any physical injury, and as preempted by section
301.
Plaintiffs rigorously contest these arguments. See
EEOC’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Jan. 25, 2008) (“EEOC Opp’n to Constructive Discharge Motion”);
2 This motion was originally filed only by NCL America. See Doc. No. 185. On November 29, 2007, Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., and NCL Corporation Ltd., who are no longer parties, filed a joinder in NCL America’s motion. See Doc. No. 192. To the extent Plaintiffs assert the same claims against Defendant NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., that entity may, at its option, be deemed to have the benefit of any ruling in this Order in favor of NCL America. While NCL (Bahamas) may certainly file dispositive motions, this court urges it to restrict itself to matters unique to it and not to relitigate matters addressed in orders preceding its entry into the case.
3

Intervenor Kassem’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line America’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Jan. 24, 2008) (“Intervenor Opp’n to Constructive Discharge Motion”).
The court concludes that genuine issues of fact preclude summary judgment as to the constructive discharge claim. Issues of fact also preclude summary judgment with respect to whether Kassem’s IIED/NIED claims are time-barred or based on outrageous conduct. Nor are the IIED/NIED claims preempted by section 301 of the LMRA. However, the NIED claim fails given the absence of the physical injury required by Hawaii law. Accordingly, the Constructive Discharge Motion is granted with respect to the NIED claim, but denied with respect to all remaining claims.
In a separate motion for summary judgment (the “Actual Discharge Motion”), Defendants argue that (1) the Title VII national origin and discrimination claims should be dismissed because those Plaintiffs-Intervenors who were actually fired have not established a prima facie case of discrimination and because Defendants had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for discharging them; (2) the religious discrimination claim should be dismissed because Defendants had no knowledge of PlaintiffsIntervenors’ religion; and (3) the IIED/NIED claims should be dismissed for the same reasons asserted with respect to Kassem’s IIED/NIED claims. Defendants additionally challenge Plaintiffs-
4

Intervenors’ repatriation damage claims and argue that PlaintiffIntervenor Nagi A. Alziam’s damages should be limited based on after-acquired evidence of misconduct by him.
Plaintiff EEOC counter moves for summary judgment,3 arguing that there is undisputed evidence of discriminatory profiling and pretext. See EEOC’s Counter Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Opposition to All Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Jan. 25, 2008) (“EEOC Opp’n to Actual Discharge Motion”). In the alternative, Plaintiffs argue that there are genuine issues of material fact concerning the Title VII claims and that summary judgment is not warranted on their other claims. See id.; Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ Memorandum Opposition to Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line America’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Jan. 24, 2008) (“Plaintiffs-Intervenors Opp’n to Actual Discharge Motion”).
The court denies in part and grants in part Defendants’ Actual Discharge Motion. The court concludes that (1) section 301 of the LMRA does not preempt Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ IIED/NIED claims, but the NIED claims are barred by the absence
3 Plaintiff EEOC has also filed a separate eighteenpage document--Objections and Requests to Strike in Response to All Defendants’ Concise Statement of Facts In Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment–-which, for all intents and purposes, is an additional opposition to Defendants’ concise statement of facts. See Doc. No. 263. Local rules do not provide for the filing of such a document. The court strikes this document. Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ Joinder to Plaintiff EEOC’s Objections, filed on January 28, 2008, is thus rendered moot.
5

of physical injury; (2) the collective bargaining agreement bars repatriation damages; and (3) Defendants have demonstrated that they would have terminated Alziam based on after-acquired evidence. Issues of fact preclude summary judgment on all other claims. The EEOC’s counter motion is denied in its entirety.
In conjunction with Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, Defendants have also filed two separate motions for Rule 11 sanctions. First, Defendants argue that PlaintiffsIntervenors failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry before filing their state tort claims because these claims are time-barred by Hawaii’s two-year statute of limitations. See Defendants NCL America Inc., Norwegian Cruse Line Ltd., and NCL Corporation Ltd.’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against Plaintiff-Intervenors and/or Their Counsel (Nov. 27, 2007) (“Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against Plaintiffs-Intervenors”) at 5. In their second motion for Rule 11 sanctions, Defendants contend that “sanctions are warranted because the EEOC’s and Intervenors’ religious discrimination claims are not based on reasonable inquiry and lack evidentiary support.” Defendants NCL America Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., and NCL Corporation Ltd.’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and/or its Counsel and Plaintiff-Intervenors and/or Their Counsel (Nov. 27, 2007) (“Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against Plaintiffs”) at 6. As Defendants are not the prevailing
6

parties on their underlying motions for summary judgment, the

court denies Defendants’ motions for Rule 11 sanctions.4

II.

BACKGROUND FACTS.

The factual background of this case was summarized in

this court’s previous order. See Feb. 1, 2008, Order at 9-13.

Those facts are incorporated into this order and supplemented as

necessary.

From June to July 2004, Plaintiffs-Intervenors worked

on NCL America’s cruise ship, the Pride of Aloha. Ex. 15

(attached to Actual Discharge Motion). Two unions–-the Seafarers

International Union (“SIU”) and the Seafarers Entertainment and

Allied Trades Union (“SEATU”)–-represented the various employment

positions that Plaintiffs-Intervenors held. Declaration of Fay

Rawles-Schoch (Nov. 27, 2007)(“Rawles-Schoch Decl.”) at ¶ 5. SIU

and SEATU each has its own collective bargaining agreement

(“CBA”), and these CBAs address hiring policies, equal

opportunity, terminations, and repatriation. See Exs. 16, 17

(attached to Actual Discharge Motion).

Between July 12 and July 18, 2004, Pride of Aloha

employee Eric Tedtaotao allegedly observed a Middle Eastern

4 The court counsels all parties that their eagerness to file unnecessary and meritless motions is trying the court’s patience. Plaintiffs’ habit of automatically filing counter motions and Defendants’ reflexive filing of Rule 11 motions are wasting their clients’ time and money. The court urges the parties to rethink their motion strategy.
7

coworker appear angry, make disparaging remarks about Americans, state that he would be joined by friends soon, and ask about restricted areas of the ship. Deposition of Eric Tedtaotao (Mar. 17, 2007) (“Tedtaotao Dep.”) at 61-75.
On July 18, 2004, allegedly alarmed by this behavior, Tedtaotao reported his observations to Safety Manager Alejandro Mercado and encouraged Mercado to look into the Middle Eastern employees. Id. at 107-08; Deposition of Alejandro Mercado (Nov. 6, 2007) (“Mercado Dep.”) at 69-70. Shortly thereafter, Tedtaotao resigned. Mercado Dep. at 70. Allegedly concerned by the questions regarding the ship’s restricted areas, Mercado reported the matter to Surveillance Manager Miguel Pilgram. Id. at 80-81. Pilgram in turn gave the information to Security Officer James Conway and Staff Captain David Turner. Deposition of James Conway (May 14, 2007) (“Conway Dep.”) at 78-79. Later on the evening he learned of the matter, Pilgram used the ship’s computer system to search for Middle Eastern new hires and discovered that two Plaintiffs-Intervenors–-Nagi Alziam and Muthana Shaibi–-matched this description. Deposition of Miguel Pilgram (Nov. 8, 2007) (“Pilgram Dep.”) at 40-44.
On July 19, 2004, Conway saw two male crewmembers on the gangway. Thinking they were new hires, Conway asked to see their identifications and asked them whether they were supposed to be in orientation. The two crewmembers allegedly gave
8

inconsistent responses. Conway Dep. at 82-85. Conway told Pilgram and Turner about the matter. Pilgram then gave Conway photographs of Alziam and Shaibi. Id. at 95, 100-04. Pilgram confirmed that Alziam and Shaibi were the two men he had spoken with.
Matthew Lewis, Director of Security in Defendants’ Miami office, was told of these occurrences and was sent information on Alziam and Shaibi. Deposition of Matthew Lewis (Nov. 7, 2007) (“Lewis Dep.”) at 70-72. Lewis then contacted FBI Agent George Nau in Miami and asked Nau to check on whether Alziam and Shaibi might pose problems. Id. at 75-76, 79, 82. Lewis says that on July 21, 2004, Agent Nau notified him that Alziam and Shaibi were “positive matches” in the FBI database, meaning that they were in the FBI computer system. Id. at 82-83; Declaration of George Nau (Oct. 15, 2007) (“Nau Decl.”) at ¶ 9. There is some discrepancy regarding what Agent Nau told Lewis, but Lewis alleges that Agent Nau indicated that Alziam and Shaibi were implicated in money laundering schemes in support of terrorist organizations. Lewis Dep. at 82-84. Lewis gave this information to NCL America Executive Vice President Robert Kritzman. Id. at 86-87.
Meanwhile, Pilgram identified three more crewmembers–Plaintiffs-Intervenors Ahmed Almraisi, Abdullah Yahia, and Ahmed
9

Al-Mlhany–-who had minor discrepancies in their personnel records. Ex. 26 (attached to Actual Discharge Motion).
On July 23, 2004, Lewis asked Agent Nau to check into these three additional names. These three individuals also were “positive matches” in the FBI database. Lewis Dep. at 172-74.; Nau Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8. Kritzman was told of this. Later that afternoon, Lewis, Kritzman, and other NCL personnel held a telephone conference call in which they decided to contact the FBI office in Honolulu. Lewis Dep. at 99-105.
FBI Agent Joe Norris was contacted in Honolulu. Agent Norris told Lewis that the Joint Terrorism Task Force (“JTTF”) would conduct an investigation onboard the Pride of Aloha on Maui the next day, July 24, 2004. Id. at 106-07.
Kritzman decided that the identified crewmembers would be deemed to have failed their probation, based on (1) their inquiries about restricted areas, (2) Conway’s encounter with the new hires, (3) the “positive matches” in the FBI database, (4) discrepancies in the personnel files, (5) the upcoming JTTF investigation, (6) the high profile of the Pride of Aloha, and (7) the safety of the 3,000 people on the ship. Deposition of Robert Kritzman (Mar. 15, 2007) (“Kritzman Dep.”) at 47-50.
On the morning of July 24, 2004, Kritzman told Turner of the termination decision. Deposition of David Turner (May 12, 2007) (“Turner Dep.”) at 187. The JTTF boarded the Pride of
10

Aloha that day and, after being briefed by the ship staff, began an investigation. Declaration of Joseph Norris (Aug. 26, 2007) (“Norris Decl.”) at ¶¶ 7-9. The JTTF identified individuals to interview, and Conway helped facilitate the process. Conway Dep. at 122-23. The JTTF concluded that Plaintiffs-Intervenors posed no security threat and told Plaintiffs-Intervenors that they could return to work. Deposition of Joseph Garguilo (Mar. 6, 2007) (“Garguilo Dep.”) at 39, 50-60.
At the end of its investigation, the JTTF notified ship officials of its findings and told Conway that the JTTF might need to conduct a further investigation of PlaintiffsIntervenors. Conway told the JTTF that Plaintiffs-Intervenors had already been discharged for failing probation. Id. at 61-64. Conway was unclear about how Plaintiffs-Intervenors would return home. Id. at 66; Norris Decl. at ¶¶ 17-18. The JTTF investigators ran into Plaintiffs-Intervenors on the pier and, upon learning that they were without transportation, helped arrange transportation for Plaintiffs-Intervenors to the airport. Garguilo Dep. at 70-71.
Plaintiff-Intervenor Kassem–-also a Muslim Yemeni–-had not been investigated by the JTTF. Deposition of Samed Kassem (Sept. 5, 2007) (“Kassem Dep.”) at 15. Up until July 24, 2004, Kassem had not experienced any animosity based on his national origin or religion, but, on the morning of July 24, 2004, he felt
11

that his coworkers were treating him differently. According to Kassem, a coworker said he thought the ship had fired all the “terrorists” and asked Kassem what he still was doing on the ship. It was only when he learned that a number of Muslim Yemeni crewmembers had been fired that Kassem could place the comments in context. Id. at 67-69. Kassem says that, throughout the day, he felt isolated and ostracized, as coworkers allegedly avoided Kassem and directed slurs toward him. Id. at 70. Kassem says he was called a “terrorist” and was told to go back to his country by coworkers gathered in groups. Id. at 77-79.
Kassem says he complained to someone he believed was a supervisor. That person told Kassem to return to work. According to Kassem, when the slurs and comments continued, he concluded that nothing was going to be done to help him. Id. at 80-83. Because these comments were directed at Kassem by groups of people, Kassem claims to have felt physically threatened and unable to defend himself both physically and verbally. Id. at 157, 159.
The next morning, July 25, 2004, Kassem resigned. Although Kassem told NCL America that he was quitting because his daughter was sick, Kassem says this was an excuse he used so he could leave the ship immediately. Id. at 84. Kassem says he wanted to leave the ship quickly before it left Honolulu because
12

he was concerned about being on the ship while it was out at sea. Id. at 93.
Two weeks later, Kassem tried to come back to work with NCL America, hoping that things had calmed down. Id. at 86, 89.
On August 1, 2004, JTTF agents Norris and Garguilo went back to the Pride of Aloha to resolve remaining security concerns. Norris Decl. at ¶ 20. During this investigation, members of the U.S. Coast Guard questioned Conway on the reporting protocols for terminations based on security concerns. Id. at ¶ 23. Conway asserted that Plaintiffs-Intervenors were terminated because they failed probation and/or posed security concerns. Id. Agent Norris also interviewed Mercado and Pilgram. Mercado denied that Tedtaotao had reported to Mercado that the Middle Eastern crewmembers had asked him questions about restricted areas. Pilgram could not recall what Mercado had told him about whether or not the crewmembers had asked Tedtaotao questions. Id. at ¶¶ 24-25.
After concluding its investigation, the JTTF considered looking into whether there was evidence of false reporting by NCL America. Garguilo Dep. at 79-81.
13

III.

LEGAL STANDARDS.

The summary judgment and Rule 11 sanctions standards

are set forth in this court’s previous order. See Feb. 1, 2008,

Order at 6-9. Those standards are incorporated herein by

reference.

IV.

ANALYSIS.

There are currently two defense motions for summary

judgment before the court–-one pertaining to Kassem’s claim of

constructive discharge and the other pertaining to Plaintiffs-

Intervenors’ claims of actual discharge. Each motion also

addresses state claims, with the state claim being identical in

both motions. The court first analyzes the Title VII claim

concerning Kassem’s constructive discharge claim, then separately

examines the other Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ Title VII claims.

Defendants appear to be challenging the § 1981 claims on the same

grounds as the Title VII claims. The state claims of all

Plaintiffs-Intervenors are examined together in the discussion

below.

A. Defendants’ Constructive Discharge Motion.

To survive summary judgment on a constructive discharge

claim, a plaintiff must show a triable issue of fact as to

whether a reasonable person would have felt compelled to quit

“because of intolerable and discriminatory working conditions.”

Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1465 (9th Cir.

14

1994); see also Draper v. Coeur Rochester, Inc., 147 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 1998) (“In such cases the individual has simply had enough; [the individual] can’t take it anymore.”). The issue of whether working conditions were so intolerable that they warranted resignation is usually a question best left to the factfinder. Thomas v. Douglas, 877 F.2d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir. 1989). Generally, “a single isolated instance of employment discrimination is insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding of constructive discharge.” Watson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 823 F. 2d 360, 361 (9th Cir. 1987). To prove constructive discharge, the plaintiff must show “aggravating factors” or a continuous pattern of discrimination. Id.
Constructive discharge claims can be brought based either on an adverse employment action or the existence of a hostile work environment. See Penn. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 140 (2004). To prevail on a summary judgment motion involving a hostile work environment claim, the plaintiff must show that there is a triable issue as to whether the harassment was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1113 (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Courts look to evidence of both subjective and objective hostility. Id.
15

Subjective hostility concerns the plaintiff’s subjective perception that the environment was hostile. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21-22 (1993). Objective hostility-whether a reasonable person would find the environment hostile-can be determined by looking at the totality of circumstances, including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Id. at 23.
“Where a plaintiff fails to demonstrate the severe or pervasive harassment necessary to support a hostile work environment claim, it will be impossible for her to meet the higher standard of constructive discharge: conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would leave the job.” Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 930 (9th Cir. 2000). Constructive discharge requires some “aggravating factors” that would compel a reasonable person to leave. See id.
Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because the circumstances surrounding Kassem’s resignation do not, as a matter of law, establish either a hostile work environment or a constructive discharge claim.5
5 At the hearing, Defendants also argued that Kassem’s constructive discharge claim was never administratively exhausted. NCL America failed to raise this argument in its moving papers. Moreover, a similar argument will be addressed in connection with Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary
16

Constructive Discharge Motion at 12. Defendants submit that Kassem left on his own accord, and that a few comments made by crewmembers over about eighteen hours are insufficient to sustain a claim for constructive discharge. Id. at 8-11.
The problem with Defendants’ position is that it ignores the context of the comments. Six other crewmembers of the same national origin and religion as Kassem had recently been fired following an FBI investigation. This could have left Kassem understandably feeling isolated or at least possibly unwelcome as a Yemeni Muslim. In light of the circumstances, there is a genuine issue of fact regarding the existence of a hostile work environment. There is some evidence of both subjective and objective hostility. Kassem testified to fearing for his personal safety, especially because he felt outnumbered and defenseless. Moreover, objective hostility can be inferred by the allegedly continuous harassment and insults Kassem faced throughout the day, the alleged lack of supervisory intervention to address the reported harassment, as well as the allegedly threatening nature of taunts by groups of crewmembers. The court thus concludes that there is at least an issue of fact regarding whether there was a hostile work environment.
Judgment Against All Defendants, set for hearing on February 25, 2008. See Doc. No. 180. The court does not here rule on that issue.
17

The court also concludes that Kassem has presented some evidence of “aggravating factors” that could sustain a claim for constructive discharge. Defendants contend that harassment over an eighteen-hour period does not constitute an aggravating factor. Nevertheless, this harassment was allegedly continuous and occurred on a ship, which is distinct from some other working situations because it requires Kassem to spend both his working and leisure time in the same environment surrounded by the same individuals.
In Watson, the Ninth Circuit concluded that three instances of differential treatment occurring over a one-month period constituted evidence of aggravating factors sufficient to survive summary judgment. The plaintiff in Watson had received allegedly false performance reports and was subjected to abusive and harassing comments from coworkers. Watson, 823 F. 2d at 36162. Here, although the harassment took place over a much shorter period of time, the nature of the harassment is more severe than that faced by the Watson plaintiff. Further, Kassem says he felt isolated, as insults were allegely directed toward him by groups of other crewmembers. The record contains sufficient evidence of aggravating factors to proceed to trial. See e.g., Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement and Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that the plaintiff’s isolation as the only woman supervisor, as well as “demeaning and
18

threatening comments” made by coworkers, constituted aggravating factors).
In light of all the circumstances surrounding Kassem’s resignation, there are issues of fact regarding whether a reasonable person in Kassem’s position would have felt compelled to leave. Defendants’ Constructive Discharge Motion is denied with respect to the constructive discharge claim.
B. Defendants’ Actual Discharge Motion. To establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination, a plaintiff must show that “(1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably.” McGinest, 360 F.3d at 1122 n.16 (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973)); Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 2000). The initial burden of demonstrating a prima facie case is not onerous. Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Cmty. College Dist., 934 F.2d 1104, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 1991) (“evidence may be direct or circumstantial, and . . . the amount that must be produced in order to create a prima facie case is ‘very little’”), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dept., 424 F.3d 1027 (9th
19

Cir. 2005) (quoting Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1009 (9th Cir. 1985)).
“The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action.” McGinest, 360 F.3d at 1122 n.16. If the employer carries this burden, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s reason was a pretext for discrimination. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). The plaintiff may do so “either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” Id. (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 US. at 804-05).
“As a general matter, the plaintiff in an employment discrimination action need produce very little evidence in order to overcome an employer’s motion for summary judgment.” Chuang, 225 F.3d at 1124. “The ultimate question is one that can only be resolved through a searching inquiry--one that is most appropriately conducted by a factfinder, upon a full record.” Schnidrig v. Columbia Mach., Inc., 80 F.3d 1406, 1410 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted).
1. Prima Facie Case. The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that, on a summary judgment motion, the amount of proof a plaintiff needs to establish a prima facie case is “minimal and does not even need
20

to rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.” Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1994). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot make out a prima facie case based on their religious discrimination claim because there is no evidence that Defendants knew that Plaintiffs-Intervenors were Muslim or, indeed, had any religious affiliation. Actual Discharge Motion at 30. Defendants also contend that PlaintiffsIntervenors have failed to make out a prima facie case based on their national origin discrimination claim because they have failed to identify similarly situated individuals who were treated more favorably. Id. 24-25. The court is not persuaded by either argument. It appears to the court that PlaintiffsIntervenors’ claims of discrimination based on national origin and religion are interrelated. The court therefore analyzes the claims together.
a. National Origin and/or Religious Discrimination.
Defendants note that Kritzman, when making his discharge decision, did not have information on the PlaintiffsIntervenors’ religious affiliation. Id. at 30-32. There is no contention that Defendants were unaware of PlaintiffsIntervenors’ Middle Eastern origin. In light of the circumstances of this case, the court concludes that there is at least an issue of fact regarding whether Defendants inferred
21

Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ Muslim religion based on their national origin.
As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, “where two bases for discrimination exist, they cannot be neatly reduced to distinct components.” Lam v. Univ. of Hawai’i, 40 F.3d 1551, 1562 (9th Cir. 1994).
Courts have previously recognized the overlap between racial and national origin discrimination. “[R]ace and national origin discrimination may present identical factual issues when a victim is ‘born in a nation whose primary stock is one’s own ethnic group.’” Sinai v. New England Tel. And Tel. Co., 3 F.3d 471, 475 (1st Cir. 1993) (quoting Saint Francis Coll. v. AlKhazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 614 (1987) (Brennan, J., concurring)); see also Deravin v. Kerik, 335 F.3d 195, 202 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Where the line between national origin discrimination and racial discrimination is difficult to trace, courts have warned that ‘[a]n attempt to make such a demarcation before both parties have had an opportunity to offer evidence at trial is inappropriate.’”) (quoting Bullard v. OMI Georgia, Inc., 640 F.2d 632, 634-35 (5th Cir. 1981)).
In Sinai, the plaintiff alleged discrimination on the basis of his race, Jewish/Hebrew, as well as national origin, Israel. The defendants objected to the jury finding that the plaintiff had suffered racial discrimination when the only
22

evidence of discrimination was based on disparaging remarks about the plaintiff’s Israeli background. The Second Circuit disagreed, concluding that the jury could infer that “Israel is one of those countries in which the populace is composed primarily of a particular race.” Id. at 474. The court thus concluded that the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of his race when disparaging remarks were made only about his national origin.
Similarly, courts are beginning to recognize the overlap between religion and national origin. In Sasannejad v. Univ. of Rochester, 329 F. Supp. 2d 385, 391 (W.D.N.Y. 2004), the court recognized that, in certain circumstances, a claim based on national origin discrimination “may be so interrelated” with a claim based on religious discrimination that the two are “indistinguishable.” The plaintiff was born in Iran and was a nonpracticing Muslim. In his EEOC charge, the plaintiff specified only national origin discrimination and not religious discrimination. The defendants objected that there had been no administrative exhaustion of the religious discrimination claim. The court concluded that the claims were “sufficiently blurred” and “reasonably related to one another” because the religious demography of Iran was ninety-eight percent Muslim.
In Salem v. Heritage Square Inc., 2007 WL 2555513 (N.D. Cal. 2007), the plaintiff was Middle Eastern and an Orthodox
23

Catholic. The plaintiff alleged employment discrimination and a hostile environment on the basis of her gender, Middle Eastern ethnicity, and her “purported religion” of Muslim. Even though the plaintiff was Catholic, she claimed that her colleagues may have believed that she was Muslim. Id. at *8. Most of the comments that the plaintiff presented as evidence of discrimination were limited to her Middle Eastern ethnicity, rather than her “purported” Muslim religion. The court, nonetheless, concluded that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s colleagues were aware of her religion. The court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, noting that all facts relevant to the plaintiff’s claims of gender, ethnic, and religious discrimination should be considered together. Id. at *9.
Here, Defendants knew that Plaintiffs-Intervenors were Yemeni. In addition, some of Kritzman’s purported reasons for discharging Plaintiffs-Intervenors were based on security concerns. Kritzman Dep. at 47-50. It would not be a far inferential leap for this court to conclude that, even if Kritzman had no knowledge of Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ actual religion, there is at least a question of fact as to whether Kritzman inferred their religion based on their Yemeni origin.
In this post-September 11 world, national origin and religion have often become conflated in media reports, especially
24

with regard to issues of terrorism. In Sasannejad, the court-citing the World Factbook report issued by the Central Intelligence Agency--noted that Muslim was the dominant religion in Iran, and thus, claims of religious and national origin discrimination were interrelated. Similarly, the 2008 World Factbook issued by the Central Intelligence Agency states that the primary religion of Yemen is Muslim. See Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2008, found at http://www.cia.gove/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ym.html (last updated Feb. 12, 2008). It would thus not be surprising if Defendants inferred that Plaintiffs-Intervenors were Muslim based on their Yemeni origin. The court denies Defendants’ summary judgment on the religious discrimination claim.
b. Similarly Situated Individuals. In Title VII discrimination claims, a plaintiff must show that similarly situated individuals outside of his protected class were treated more favorably than he was. Chuang, 225 F.3d at 1123. “[I]ndividuals are similarly situated when they have similar jobs and display similar conduct.” Vasquez v. City of Los Angeles, 348 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, Defendants argue that, to prevail on their claim, Plaintiffs must show that other non-Yemeni or non-Muslim employees who engaged in similar conduct were not terminated. See Rutenschroer v. Starr Seigle Commc’ns, Inc., 484 F.2d 1144, 1155 (D. Haw. 2006) (“For the
25

purpose of this analysis, Plaintiff must prove that employees with a similar work schedule that were not black, not AfricanAmerican, or not female received better treatment.”)(citing Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because “they cannot identify any similarly-situated individuals outside the protected class, much less that such individuals were treated more favorably.” Actual Discharge Motion at 25. Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have failed to identify others who engaged in a pattern of “similar conduct”--asking about restricted areas of the ship, lying to ship officers, sharing various associations, and being subject to FBI investigation or appearing in the FBI database–-but were treated more favorably.
The Ninth Circuit, however, has rejected such an argument at the summary judgment stage. When a plaintiff alleges discrimination based on membership in a protected class, the allegation can be “liberally construed” as an allegation of being “treated differently from others similarly situated.” Perugini v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 935 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1991). If Defendants in the present case are arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to state a Title VII claim, that was a subject for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, not a summary judgment motion. See id.
26

More importantly, Defendants’ argument is far too narrowly framed. Defendants looked into Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ personnel files and learned of Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ inclusion in the FBI database only as a result of having first performed a search into NCL America’s own database for only “Middle Eastern” hires. Pilgram Dep. at 44. Thus, to identify similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs would only need to identify other employees who had asked about restricted areas or lied to ship officers, but who were not then investigated or fired. There is a factual dispute created by Mercado’s denial that Tedtaotao even told him about restricted area questions in the first place. Thus, Defendants’ argument may be limited to a comparison with other crewmembers who told lies. Defendants do not appear to be claiming that they fired every crewmember who ever said something untrue. The court notes that not all lies would be likely to be documented, and Plaintiffs would likely be hard pressed to get other crewmembers to admit to having told lies. Given Defendants’ misframing of their “similarly situated” argument, summary judgment is not warranted on that issue.
2. Defendants’ Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason and Evidence of Pretext.
Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to “produce admissible evidence which would allow the trier of fact rationally to
27

conclude that the employment decision had not been motivated by discriminatory animus.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 257.
If a defendant provides a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the plaintiff can prove pretext either directly by showing that the employer was more than likely motivated by a discriminatory purposes or, indirectly, by showing that the defendant’s nondiscriminatory is not credible “because it is internally inconsistent or not believable.” Chuang, 225 F.3d at 1127; Godwin v. Hunt Wesson Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir. 1998).
Direct evidence proves discriminatory animus without “inference or presumption.” Godwin, 150 F.3d at 1221; see also id. (citing cases of sexual stereotyping and racial slurs as constituting direct evidence). Very little direct evidence showing discriminatory intent is needed to survive summary judgment. Bergene, 272 F.3d at 1142; Blue v. Widnall, 162 F.3d 541, 546 (9th Cir. 1998). Indirect, or circumstantial, evidence, however, needs to be “specific and substantial.” Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace and Co., 104 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 1996). Nevertheless, a “plaintiff can survive summary judgment without producing any evidence of discrimination beyond that constituting his prima facie case, if that evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding the truth of the employer’s proffered
28

reasons.” Chuang, 225 F.3d at 1127 (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 146 (2000)).
Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case, Defendants have set forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating PlaintiffsIntervenors: “a bona fide interest in ship security.” Actual Discharge Motion at 27. Kritzman says he was concerned about the ship’s security and discharged Plaintiffs-Intervenors because of: (1) their questions about restricted areas of the ship; (2) Conway’s suspicious encounter with two PlaintiffsIntervenors; (3) “positive matches” in the FBI database; (4) discrepancies in personnel records; (5) the JTTF investigation; (6) Pride of Aloha’s status as a U.S.-flagged ship; and (7) concern for 3,000 lives.
Plaintiffs respond that (1) Defendants targeted Middle Eastern crewmembers in their investigation, (2) Defendants based their discharge decision on FBI information that allegedly does not exist, (3) the decision to discharge was made before the JTTF concluded its investigation, and (4) Defendants relied on the report of Tedtaotao, whose credibility Plaintiffs challenge. EEOC Opp’n to Actual Discharge Motion at 24-40.
Questions of fact preclude summary judgment on the above issues. It appears to the court that these issues turn on witness credibility. The matter is appropriate for trial.
29

C. IIED and NIED State Claims. Defendants challenge Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ state tort claims based on: (1) section 301 preemption, (2) the running of the statute of limitations, and (3) the failure to prove essential elements of the state torts.
1. Preemption by Section 301 of the LMRA. For purposes of this court’s jurisdiction over the IIED/NIED claims, the court must first determine whether these claims are preempted by section 301 of the LMRA. Livadas v.Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 121-122 (1994). Section 301 provides: “Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization . . . may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties.” 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Under section 301, courts apply substantive federal law to labor contract disputes, and federal courts are authorized to fashion a body of federal common law to govern disputes arising out of labor contracts. Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 456 (1957). “As a result of this broad federal mandate, the Supreme Court has explained, the ‘preemptive force of section 301 is so powerful as to displace entirely any state cause of action for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.’” Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 461 U.S. 1, 23 (1983)).
30

This court’s inquiry thus focuses on whether the IIED/NIED claims are really claims based on a contract between an employer and a union. That is, if the IIED/NIED claims involve rights that Plaintiffs-Intervenors have solely because of a CBA, those claims are preempted. Even if the claims involve rights conferred by state law, independent of a CBA, the claims are preempted if they are “substantially dependent” on analysis of a CBA. See id. (citing Caterpillar Inc., v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 394 (1987)).
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ tort claims are preempted by section 301 because the “outcome depends on an analysis of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.” Actual Discharge Motion at 36. Citing to Miller v. AT&T Network Sys., 850 F.2d 543 (9th Cir. 1988), Defendants contend that IIED and NIED claims depend on the outrageousness and unreasonableness of the challenged conduct, and such conduct must be evaluated in reference to the relationship between Defendants and Plaintiffs-Intervenors: “Because the tort requires inquiry into the appropriateness of the defendant’s behavior, the terms of the CBA can become relevant in evaluating whether the defendant’s behavior was reasonable.” Id. at 550. Defendants point out that the CBAs address hiring practices, equal opportunity, management prerogatives and termination of employees. Actual Discharge Motion at 38.
31

Under Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 213 (1985), this court turns to “whether evaluation of the tort claim is inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract. If the state tort law purports to define the meaning of the contract relationship, that law is pre-empted.” Id. at 213. “[T]he need to interpret the CBA must inhere in the nature of the plaintiff’s claim. If the claim is plainly based on state law, § 301 preemption is not mandated simply because the defendant refers to the CBA in mounting a defense.” Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683, 691 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, “a claim is not preempted if it poses no significant threat to the collective bargaining process and furthers a state interest in protecting the public transcending the employment relationship.” Young v. Anthony’s Fish Grottos, Inc., 830 F.2d 993, 1001 (9th Cir. 1987).
The Ninth Circuit has noted that “[s]ection 301 preemption of intentional infliction/outrage claims is a thorny area; [the Ninth Circuit has] previously acknowledged its difficulty and the uphill battle a plaintiff typically faces to explain why the tort claim is not being used to alter the terms agreed to under the CBA, or sidestep its grievance procedures.” Humble v. Boeing Co., 305 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir. 2002).
In Humble, the court provided two general principles for determining when section 301 preempts IIED/NIED claims.
32

“First, if the CBA specifically covers the conduct at issue, the claim will generally be preempted.” As an example, the court discussed assignment to work duties. Second, the Ninth Circuit noted that the claims might not be preempted even if the CBA covered the conduct if the IIED/NIED claims were “tacked on to the violation of a separate specific non-negotiable state statute, the violation of which always rises to the level of outrageousness.” Id. at 1013-14. Thus, the court has found no preemption when the conduct violated a statutory ban on the use of two-way mirrors or constituted an assault and battery. Cramer, 255 F.3d at 697; Galvez v. Kuhn, 933 F.2d 773, 777 (9th Cir. 1991); see also id. (“Here, in contrast, [the plaintiff’s] cause of action can be evaluated without interpreting the CBA because the acts alleged would violate state law irrespective of the identity of the wrongdoer or of his victim. They are claims alleging violation of a duty owed to all citizens.”).
Nonnegotiable state rights independent of any right established by CBAs are clearly not preempted. Ramirez v. Fox Television Station, Inc., 998 F.2d 743, 748 (9th Cir. 1993). The Ninth Circuit has been clear that the right to be free from discrimination recognized under state law is nonnegotiable because it cannot be bargained away by private contract. See id. (recognizing that claims brought under the California Fair
33

Employment and Housing Act6 are not preempted by section 301); see also Cook v. Lindsay Olive Growers, 911 F.2d 233, 240 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[T]he right not to be discriminated against on the basis of religion cannot be removed by private contract.”).
Hawaii has just such anti-discrimination statutes. Hawaii’s Employment Practices Act declares that it is unlawful for “any employer to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or discharge from employment, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual in compensation or in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of race, sex, age, religion, color, ancestry, handicapped status, or arrest and court record.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-2. To the extent the IIED/NIED claims derive from Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ section 378-2 claims, they are not preempted.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perugini is particularly helpful here. In Perugini, 935 F.2d 1083, the plaintiff brought suit against her employer under Title VII, alleging gender discrimination, as well as NIED/IIED. The plaintiff requested lighter work assignments given her pregnancy. Instead of accommodating the plaintiff, her supervisors required
6 Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a) states that it is unlawful for “an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin . . . to bar or discharge the person from employment . . . or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”
34

that she present a doctor’s note. Even when the plaintiff complied, her request was denied. Her supervisors also subjected her to verbal harassment regarding her pregnancy. The plaintiff’s pregnancy was complicated, and she lost her child. Id. at 1085.
The Ninth Circuit identified two bases for the plaintiff’s IIED/NIED claims: the employer’s refusal to reassign the plaintiff to a lighter work assignment and the defendant’s harassment based on the plaintiff’s gender and pregnancy. Id. at 1088. The court found the plaintiff’s IIED/NIED claims based on her request for lighter work assignments preempted by section 301, as those claims depended on interpretation of the CBA. “[I]f [the defendant’s] managerial freedom is not constrained in any material way by the CBA, a rational jury could not find that [the defendant’s] conduct” was outrageous. Id.
By contrast, the court concluded that the IIED/NIED claims based on the defendant’s “on-the-job harassment” did not require reference to the CBA because the CBA did not “govern the offending behavior,” and such claims depended solely on a “factual inquiry into the conduct and motivation of the employer.” Id.
Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ IIED/NIED claims are analogous to the harassment claims brought in Perugini. PlaintiffsIntervenors’ IIED/NIED claims are premised on a violation of Haw.
35

Rev. Stat. § 378-2, which provides a nonnegotiable state right. The alleged conduct at issue involves discrimination on the basis of national origin and religion; assessing this alleged conduct does not require reference to the CBA. Because the court does not need to interpret the labor agreement to determine whether Plaintiffs-Intervenors were distressed by discrimination based on their national origin and/or religion, the IIED/NIED claims are not preempted. See Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 413 (1988); see also Foster v. Richardson, 843 F. Supp. 625, 629 (D. Haw. 1994) (concluding that state claims based on gender discrimination and retaliatory discharge are not preempted because such rights are “fully independent of any collective bargaining agreement”).
2. Statute of Limitations. “[A]n action for the recovery of compensation for damage or injury to persons or property shall be instituted within two years after the cause of action accrued.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7. The two-year limitations period applies to claims for emotional distress filed in federal court. Linville v. Hawaii, 874 F. Supp. 1095, 1104 (D. Haw. 1994). Defendants argue that the IIED/NIED claims are timebarred because the time began to run on the date of discharge (July 24, 2004), and Plaintiffs-Intervenors did not file their complaint until November 2006. See Actual Discharge Motion at
36

33-34. Plaintiffs-Intervenors respond that the discovery rule applies, and that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until Plaintiffs-Intervenors realized the causal connection between Defendants’ acts and the alleged distress. See Plaintiffs-Intervenors Opp’n to Actual Discharge Motion at 32-33; Plaintiff-Intervenor Opp’n to Constructive Discharge Motion at 910.
Under the discovery rule, “a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the elements giving rise to the claim.” Dunlea v. Dappen, 83 Haw. 28, 33, 924 P.2d 196, 201 (Haw. 1996), overruled in part on other grounds; see also Hays v. City and County of Honolulu, 81 Haw. 391, 393, 917 P.2d 718, 720 (Haw. 1996) (cause of action accrues when “the plaintiff knew or should have known” of the causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s harm). The discovery rule is not restricted to medical malpractice or personal injury claims. See, e.g., Hays, 81 Haw. 397-98, 917 P.2d at 724-25 (listing the factual situations in which the discovery rule has been applied); Basque v. Yuk Lin Liau, 50 Haw. 397, 398, 441 P.2d 636, 637-38 (Haw. 1968) (applying the statute of limitations discovery rule to cases involving injury to real property).
In Dunlea, the plaintiff had allegedly been sexually abused as a child by her father between 1961 and 1964. In 1964,
37

the plaintiff reported the rapes to state authorities and was removed from her father’s custody. In 1991, after speaking with her father about the abuse, the plaintiff suffered “a severe emotional reaction,” which prompted her to begin therapy. Shortly after, in 1992, the plaintiff sued her father for damages suffered as a result of the abuse. The plaintiff alleged that she had suffered depression and shame throughout her life, but it was only through therapy that she discovered that these psychological harms had been caused by her father’s sexual acts. Id. at 198-99, 30-31. The trial court dismissed the claim, concluding that it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7 because the action accrued at the time of the injury. The trial court declined to apply the discovery rule. See id. at 199, 31. The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed, applying the discovery rule and concluding that there was an issue of fact regarding when the plaintiff discovered, or should have discovered, that the alleged sexual abuse was the cause of her psychological harms. Id. at 204, 36.
Similarly, in Guillermo v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 986 F. Supp. 1334 (D. Haw. 1997), decided by Judge David Alan Ezra of this district, the court applied the discovery rule to IIED/NIED claims. In Guillermo, the plaintiffs brought IIED/NIED claims based on the defendant’s termination of a life
38

insurance policy. The policy was terminated in 1992, and the
plaintiffs brought suit in 1996. Id. at 1335-36. The defendants
argued that the IIED/NIED claims were barred by the two-year
statute of limitations. The plaintiffs argued that, although
they knew of the policy termination in 1992, it was not until
years later that they suffered distress from the termination of
the policy, given the defendants’ refusal to reinstate the
policy. In applying the discovery rule, the court concluded that
there was an issue of fact as to when the plaintiffs “knew the
causal connection between their emotional distress and [the
defendant’s] actions”:
[U]nder the discovery rule, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the causal connection between the defendant’s action and the damage done. While it is clear that [the defendant’s] action in terminating the policy was known by [the p]laintffs in 1992, it is still unclear when [the p]laintiffs actually suffered emotional distress, and when they connected their distress with [the defendant’s] actions.
Id. at 1337.
Defendants cite to the deposition testimony of
Plaintiff-Intervenor Al-Mlhany to demonstrate that Plaintiffs-
Intervenors discovered their tort claims on the date of
discharge. Defendants’ Reply at 13-14. Specifically, Al-Mlhany
testified that, on the day of discharge, he felt shocked and
humiliated and that Plaintiffs-Intervenors discussed bringing a
39

claim against the company on the basis of religious and/or national origin discrimination. See Deposition of Ahmed AlMlhany (April 30, 2007) at 8-10.
Although Plaintiffs-Intervenors were outraged at being terminated, they may not have realized the causal connection between Defendants’ actions and their own outrage. PlaintiffsIntervenors might have thought that the FBI had called for their terminations. If the FBI were responsible, PlaintiffsIntervenors would not have had a basis for bringing IIED and/or NIED claims against Defendants. See, e.g., Garguilo Dep. at 68 (“[W]e [the JTTF] walked off the ship . . . and saw three or four of the crewmen that we had just spoken with sitting on the pier with their luggage. And we walked up to them and said what’s –what’s happened? And they said, well, they fired us. And we said, well, why? Well, we were -– apparently because you were talking to us.”).7
At the hearing, Defendants argued that Garguilo’s deposition testimony demonstrates that Plaintiffs-Intervenors were aware that the FBI had concluded that Plaintiffs-Intervenors posed no security concern. See id. at 59-60. Thus, Defendants argue, Plaintiffs-Intervenors should have attributed their discharge solely to Defendants on the date of discharge. But the
7 Defendants object to Garguilo’s statement on the basis of hearsay. Garguilo’s statement is not considered for its truth but, instead, as evidence of the declarant’s state of mind.
40

FBI also notified Plaintiffs-Intervenors of the possibility of a further investigation if additional information were received. Id. at 60. This statement suggested that the FBI might still be involved. There is sufficient ambiguity in the evidence to establish a question of fact as to whether Plaintiffs-Intervenors knew or should have known that Defendants were to blame for the distress. There is a triable issue of fact as to when Plaintiffs-Intervenors discovered the cause of their alleged emotional distress.
3. Elements of IIED/NIED Claims. a. IIED.
The elements of an IIED claim are “1) that the act allegedly causing the harm was intentional or reckless, 2) that the act was outrageous, and 3) that the act caused 4) extreme emotional distress to another.” Hac v. Univ. of Hawaii, 102 Haw. 92, 107, 73 P.2d 46, 61 (Haw. 2003). To prevail on a claim of IIED, the defendant’s acts must be “unreasonable,” which means that they are without justification and beyond the standards of decency. See Shoppe v. Gucci America, Inc., 94 Haw. 368, 397, 14 P.3d 1049, 1068 (Haw. 2000). As a threshold matter, the court must determine whether the alleged acts are sufficiently unreasonable or outrageous to sustain a claim for IIED. When reasonable minds could differ, the question is for the jury. See id.
41

Defendants argue that “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities” are insufficient to sustain a claim for IIED. Actual Dicharge Motion at 35 (quoting Bragalone v. Kona Coast Resort Joint Venture, 866 F. Supp. 1285, 1294 (D. Haw. 1994)). In Bragalone, the plaintiff’s supervisor allegedly caused emotional distress by yelling at the plaintiff, giving confusing work instructions, interrupting her while speaking, and telling her she should not question his authority. See Bragalone, 866 F. Supp. at 1294. The court concluded that, although the comments were “distasteful,” they were insufficient to support a claim for IIED. Similarly, in Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai’i) Ltd., Inc., 76 Haw. 454, 465, 879 P.2d 1037, 1048, the Hawaii Supreme Court found that an employer’s decision to terminate an employee pursuant to a work policy--without evidence that the manner in which it was done or the motive for the termination was unreasonable--was insufficient to support a claim for IIED.
Plaintiffs-Intervenors contend that they were fired because of Defendants’ discriminatory animus, that they were discharged without an explanation and told to gather their belongings and to leave the ship, and that they were left without either transportation or money to return home. Garguilo Dep. at 70-71. Under such circumstances, the court concludes that there
42

is a question of fact as to whether the discharge and manner of discharge constituted outrageous and reckless conduct.
b. NIED. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ NIED claims should be dismissed because there is no evidence of physical injury. Actual Discharge Motion at 38. PlaintiffsIntervenors respond that, in Hawaii, an NIED claim can be brought when there has been no physical injury. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Opp’n to Discharge Motion at 34. Hawaii law requires that an NIED claim be supported by a physical injury: (a) No party shall be liable for the negligent infliction of serious emotional distress or disturbance if the distress or disturbance arises solely out of damage to property or material objects. (b) This section shall not apply if the serious emotional distress or disturbance results in physical injury to or mental illness of the person who experiences the emotional distress or disturbance. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-8.9. Plaintiffs-Intervenors cite to Guth v. Freeland, 96 Haw. 147, 156, 28 P.3d 982, 990 (2001), for the proposition that not all NIED claims require physical injury. Guth dealt with the negligent handling of a corpse. In permitting an NIED claim in that context, the Hawaii Supreme Court was carving out a narrow exception to the general requirement of physical injury for NIED
43

claims. See e.g., Ross, 76 Haw. at 465, 879 P.2d at 1048. Accepting Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ broad contention would entirely negate the physical injury requirement imposed by statute. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-8.9. No Hawaii appellate decision goes that far. Because Plaintiffs-Intervenors have not even alleged physical injury or a diagnosed illness, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all NIED claims is granted.
D. Other Claims. 1. Repatriation Damages.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ claims for repatriation damages are preempted by section 301 of the LMRA. The governing CBAs expressly address repatriation expenses: “[T]he Company shall have no liability for repatriation of any crew member outside of the Hawaiian Islands.” Ex. 16 at 30; Ex. 17 at 28. Defendants argue that because the CBAs explicitly address repatriation damages, these claims are preempted by section 301. Actual Discharge Motion at 39. Plaintiffs-Intervenors do not dispute this contention.
Because the CBAs clearly contain provision addressing repatriation expenses, the court agrees that such claims are preempted by section 301 of the LMRA. The court grants Defendants’ motion on any repatriation claim.
44

2. Limiting Damages Because of After-Acquired Evidence.
In McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352, 363 (1995), the Supreme Court held that, in a discrimination case, an employee’s damages for backpay are limited if the employer learns of employee misconduct that would form an independent basis for termination, even if such information would not have been discovered absent the discrimination lawsuit. The Court noted that backpay should be calculated from the date of unlawful discharge to the date the information was discovered.
The Ninth Circuit clarified that backpay can be limited based on after-acquired evidence of an employee’s misconduct “only if [the employer] can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have fired the employee for that misconduct.” O’Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., 79 F.3d 756, 761 (9th Cir. 1996). Under this standard, “[t]he inquiry focuses on the employer’s actual employment practices, not just the standards established in its employee manuals . . . .” Id. at 759.
In his August 13, 2007, deposition, Alziam testified that he had been discharged in 2002 by another employer--Global Link--for using a training certification purchased from another individual. Dep. of Nagi Ahmad Alziam (Aug. 13, 2007) at 102-03. Two days after Alziam was fired by Global Link, he began working with another ship, Atlantic Guardian. Id. at 41.
45

According to NCL America’s Human Resources Manager, Fay Rawles-Schoch, NCL America has a policy providing for the discharge of employees who have engaged in falsification or dishonesty. This includes “falsification regarding maritime credentials or training.” Rawles-Schoch Decl. at ¶ 8. RawlesSchoch identified two independent incidents that would have warranted terminating Alziam: 1) a previous discharge by another employer for “fraudulent documentation,” and 2) sailing with another employer using the same fraudulent documentation even after learning that this was prohibited. Id.
Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence disputing Defendants’ contention that Alziam would have been fired upon discovery of his misconduct. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Opp’n to Discharge Motion at 31. Accordingly, the court concludes that Defendants have established--through testimony by a Human Resources Manager and citation to company policy--that Alziam would have been terminated. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion with regard to the limiting of Alziam’s damages is granted.
E. Rule 11 Sanctions. Rule 11 sanctions should be imposed if a paper is filed for an “improper purpose” or is “frivolous.” Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc). A filing is frivolous if it is “both baseless and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry.” Id.
46

Defendants have filed two motions for Rule 11

sanctions. In one motion, Defendants argue that sanctions should

be imposed against Plaintiffs-Intervenors for filing time-barred

claims. In the other motion, Defendants contend that sanctions

should be imposed against all Plaintiffs based on their filing of

a religious discrimination claim, which was not based on a

reasonable inquiry and lacks evidentiary support. Defendants

have not prevailed on their accompanying motions for summary

judgment on these issues and therefore cannot establish

frivolousness. The court denies both motions for Rule 11

sanctions.

V.

CONCLUSION.

The court grants Defendants’ Constructive Discharge

Motion with regard to the NIED claim, but denies the motion with

respect to all remaining claims. With respect to Defendants’

Actual Discharge Motion, the court grants Defendants’ motion with

regard to the NIED claims and repatriation damage claims, and

limits Alziam’s damages because of after-acquired evidence. In

all other respects, the Actual Discharge Motion is denied. The

court denies the EEOC’s counter motion for summary judgment and

both of Defendants’ motions for Rule 11 sanctions. All joinders

are terminated consistent with this order, and the EEOC’s request

to strike, Doc. No. 263, is itself stricken.

47

This order leaves for future adjudication all Title VII and § 1981 claims, as well as Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-2 claims and IIED claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February, 19, 2008.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway Susan Oki Mollway United States District Judge
EEOC v. NCL America, Inc., et al., Civ. Nos. 06-00451, 07-00372 SOM/BMK; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART NCL AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS BY OR ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR SAMED KASSEM; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS BY THE EEOC AND BY INTERVENORS; ORDER DENYING EEOC’S COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER DENYING BOTH OF DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.’S MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS
48

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

AHMED ALMRAISI, NAGI A.

)

ALZIAM, SAMED KASSAM, MUTHANA )

A. SHAIBI, NORK YAFAIE,

)

ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED AL-

)

MLHANY,

)

)

Plaintiffs-Intervenors, )

)

vs.

)

)

NCL AMERICA, INC., and NCL )

(BAHAMAS), LTD.,

)

)

Defendants. )

_____________________________ )

)

)

ASHMED ALMLHANY,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NCL AMERICA, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 06-00451 SOM/BMK CIVIL NO. 07-00372 SOM/BMK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF EEOC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF EEOC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.

I.

INTRODUCTION.

Before the court is a motion for partial summary

judgment filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in

an employment discrimination case.

In 2004, Plaintiffs-Intervenors were employed by the cruise ship MS Pride of Aloha, which is owned and operated by NCL America, Inc. (“NCL America”). In July 2004, the PlaintiffsIntervenors were discharged or constructively discharged, allegedly based on their national origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim).
On August 22, 2006, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a complaint against NCL America,1 alleging, among other things, employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On October 23, 2006, Defendant NCL America filed its Answer to the Complaint, asserting twenty-three defenses.
The court now considers the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment on eighteen of NCL America’s defenses. Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendants NCL America, Inc., and NCL Corporation Ltd. and Norwegian Cruise Line, Limited (Nov. 27, 2007)(“Motion”). In its opposition, NCL America withdraws a number of the defenses and
1 The Complaint was originally filed against NCL America, NCL Corporation Ltd. (“NCL Corp.”), and Norwegian Cruise Line, Limited (“Norwegian Cruise Line”). NCL Corp. and Norwegian Cruise Line are no longer parties in this suit; however, on February 15, 2008, Plaintiff EEOC filed an Amended Complaint adding NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. (“NCL Bahamas”) as a defendant. See Doc. Nos. 287, 300, 302. In its Reply, the EEOC asks the court to apply this present motion to NCL Bahamas. The court declines to do so, as NCL Bahamas has not had an opportunity to respond to the arguments made in the EEOC’s motion.
2

argues that the EEOC is not entitled to summary judgment on the remaining defenses. Defendants NCL America, Inc. and Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.’s Opposition to Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Feb. 7, 2008) (“Opp’n”).
NCL America’s third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eleventh, twelfth, and nineteenth defenses have either been withdrawn2 or rendered moot by this court’s previous orders. The court has also considered arguments raised by NCL America’s first, fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth defenses in its earlier orders, and the court grants the EEOC’s Motion with regard to NCL America’s first, fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth defenses to the extent they challenge the sufficiency of the pleading (but not as to substantive issues).
Remaining before the court in this present motion are the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, twentieth, twenty-first, and twenty-third defenses. Because the court concludes that the EEOC has fulfilled its statutory obligation to investigate as a condition precedent to bringing suit, the court grants the Motion with regard to NCL America’s seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth defenses. NCL America’s twentieth and twenty-third defenses are
2 In withdrawing several defenses that were never the subject of any ruling in this case, NCL America gives no explanation for having waited so long to announce the withdrawal. The defenses were the subject of earlier interrogatories, and NCL America could have withdrawn the defenses in responding to those interrogatories, instead of waiting for a motion.
3

not valid affirmative defenses, and the court grants summary

judgment to the EEOC on these defenses. Lastly, the court

concludes that the EEOC can proceed on a classwide basis without

certifying a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and grants the EEOC summary judgment on the twenty-

first defense.

II.

BACKGROUND FACTS.

The factual background of this case was summarized in

this court’s previous orders. See Feb. 1, 2008, Order at 9-13;

Feb. 20, 2008, Order at 7-13. Those facts are incorporated into

this order and supplemented as necessary.

Between September 2004 and May 2005, Plaintiffs-

Intervenors filed charges of discrimination with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against NCL America.

Ex. 2 (attached to Motion). On April 22, 2005, an EEOC

investigator, Raymond Griffin, interviewed two Plaintiffs-

Intervenors, Abdullah Yahia and Ahmed Almraisi. Deposition of

Raymond Griffin Jr. (May 1, 2007) (“Griffin Dep.”) at 13, 16-18.

Griffin interviewed Yahia and Almraisi separately, both over the

telephone and in the presence of their attorney. Id. During the

interview, Griffin took notes and, that same day, typed up the

interview notes. See Ex. B (attached to Opp’n). Griffin’s notes

indicate that Yahia and Almraisi had similar experiences on the

date of discharge. Both were awakened by a security guard,

4

questioned by the FBI, then told by the security guard to “get

off the ship.” See id. Although Griffin’s description of what

happened to Yahia is similar to his description of what happened

to Almraisi, Griffin also notes distinctions between the two in

his notes, such as how Almraisi responded to the security guard,

and the amount of money that each was paid upon leaving the ship.

On October 18, 2005, the EEOC issued six letters of

determination, finding reasonable cause that Plaintiffs-

Intervenors were discharged on the basis of their national origin

and religion. Ex. 3 (attached to Motion). On November 22, 2005,

the EEOC issued a letter of determination on behalf of Plaintiff-

Intervenor Samed Kassem, finding reasonable cause that Kassem had

been constructively discharged based on his national origin and

religion. Id.

III.

LEGAL STANDARD.

The summary judgment standard is set forth in this

court’s earlier order. See Feb. 1, 2008, Order at 6-9. The

standard is incorporated herein by reference.

IV.

ANALYSIS.

A. Third Defense–-Statute of Limitations.

In light of the dismissal of NCL Corp. and Norwegian

Cruise Line, the third defense (raising the statute of

limitations) is now moot. Opp’n at 1-2.

5

B. Fourth and Seventh Defenses–-Equitable Doctrines and Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies.
NCL America clarifies that its fourth defense, which cites “equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel, laches, and/or unclean hands,” is moot in light of the dismissal of NCL Corp. and Norwegian Cruise Line. Remaining, however, is NCL America’s seventh defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and other internal remedies or processes. Id. at 2. Asserting that the EEOC failed to satisfy the conditions precedent to bringing suit, NCL America points to what it says is the EEOC’s failure to conduct a genuine investigation. See id. at 3-6. NCL America claims that the EEOC investigation was inadequate because (1) the EEOC only interviewed two of the seven charging parties, (2) the interviews of the two charging parties took place only during a single telephone call, (3) the EEOC never inquired into whether the charging parties had ever engaged in wrongful conduct, (4) the EEOC generated “materially identical interview notes” for the two interviewed charging parties, and (5) the EEOC provided no evidence as to whether NCL America knew of the charging parties’ religions. Id. at 2-3.
Prior to bringing a Title VII suit, the EEOC must satisfy certain conditions precedent: (1) the EEOC must receive a charge of an unlawful employment practice; (2) the EEOC must notify the employer of the alleged wrongful act and conduct an investigation to determine whether there is reasonable cause to
6

believe the charge is true; (3) the EEOC must engage in “informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion” to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices; and (4) if the conciliation efforts are unsuccessful, the EEOC must notify the employer in writing. EEOC v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5); see also id. at 608 (“Genuine investigation, reasonable cause determination and conciliation are jurisdictional conditions precedent to suit by the EEOC . . . .”).
In Pierce Packing Co., the court concluded that the EEOC could not bring suit when there was a complete failure to investigate or conciliate. The EEOC sued in federal court to enforce a settlement agreement that was entered into before the EEOC conducted any independent investigation or issued a reasonable cause determination. The EEOC’s failure to conduct any investigation or issue a reasonable cause determination led the Ninth Circuit to be concerned that the EEOC was using the settlement agreement “as a springboard to court enforcement.” Id. Although the Ninth Circuit emphasized the necessity of an independent EEOC investigation, reasonable cause determination, and conciliation, the court did not specify the level of investigation or conciliation that the EEOC was required to engage in to satisfy the conditions precedent to suit.
7

One court has concluded that, under Pierce Packing Co., only “some investigation” of the charge filed is required. EEOC v. Nestle Co., 1982 WL 234 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 1982). In Nestle, the EEOC only investigated gender discrimination in “blue-collar” positions. Nevertheless, when the EEOC brought suit, it expanded the scope of its action to include gender discrimination in white-collar positions. The court concluded that the investigation was adequate, noting that the employer had not provided any “discernible standard” for determining the adequacy of an EEOC investigation. Id.
This court has not found Ninth Circuit authority addressing challenges to the adequacy of an EEOC investigation. Recently, however, a United States District Court in the District of Nevada concluded that “an employer may not litigate the adequacy of the EEOC’s investigation and determination.” EEOC v. Gold River Operating Corp., 2007 WL 983853 at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 30, 2007). In doing so, the court looked to decisions of other circuits. The Sixth Circuit, for example, has previously held that courts should not look to the sufficiency of an EEOC investigation, as the investigation does not go to the merits of the litigation, and only puts the employer on notice and provides a background for conciliation efforts. See EEOC v. Keco Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, 1100 (6th Cir. 1984). Similarly, the Seventh Circuit has stated that a “determination of reasonable
8

cause is only an administrative prerequisite to a court action and has no legally binding significance in subsequent litigation.” EEOC v. Harvey L. Walner & Assocs., 91 F.3d 963, 968 n.3 (7th Cir. 1996); see also EEOC v. Chicago Miniature Lamp Works, 526 F. Supp. 974, 975 (N.D. Ill. 1981) (noting that allowing a defendant to challenge the EEOC’s reasonable cause determination would “effectively make every Title VII suit a twostep action”).
In a related context, courts have held that a deferential standard of review should apply when EEOC conciliation efforts are challenged as inadequate. In EEOC v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., 481 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (S.D. Cal. 2007), the court concluded that “substantial discretion [is] to be vested in the EEOC,” and that the “court’s role is limited to reviewing whether the EEOC’s [conciliation] efforts afforded the employer an opportunity to confront the issues.” Id. at 1113, 1115; Keco Indus., 738 F.2d at 1102 (“The district court should only determine whether the EEOC made an attempt at conciliation. The form and substance of those conciliations is within the discretion of the EEOC as the agency created to administer and enforce our employment discrimination laws and is beyond judicial review.”); see also EEOC v. Grimway Enter., Inc., 2007 WL 1725660, at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2007).
9

In Hometown Buffet, the court, examining what standard to apply in reviewing a challenge to EEOC conciliation efforts, considered the legislative history of the statutory scheme as well as the traditional deference afforded administrative agencies. See Hometown Buffet, 481 F. Supp. 2d at 1113-14. Applying a deferential standard of review, the court concluded that the EEOC had fulfilled its statutory obligation to conciliate even though the EEOC had refused to disclose the factual basis for its discrimination determination and had sought the maximum statutory penalties during conciliation efforts. Id. at 1114-15. The court declined to inquire into the substance and form of the conciliation efforts even after noting the “EEOC’s rigid and preemptive attitude,” which “did not serve as an effective conciliation technique.” Id.
Taken together, the cases stand for the proposition that an EEOC investigation-–although a condition precedent to the EEOC’s bringing of a lawsuit–-simply requires that some investigation be made, and that challenges to the adequacy of the investigation are subject to a deferential standard of review. Here, the EEOC investigator, Griffin, interviewed two of the seven charging parties. Given the similar experiences of the charging parties and the nearly simultaneous discharges, the EEOC investigator could have inferred that interviews with the remaining charging parties would have yielded similar accounts.
10

While the interviews were conducted over the telephone, the EEOC investigator also ensured that the interviews were conducted separately. Griffin Dep. at 16-18. Thus, without inquiring into the substance of the EEOC investigation, the court is satisfied that the EEOC engaged in some investigation.
NCL America argues that “where an investigation does not include meaningful participation by the charging party, this deficiency is the basis for dismissal.” Opp’n at 4. NCL America cites to Shikles v. Sprint/United Management Co., 426 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2005), in which the Tenth Circuit dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction when the charging party failed to exhaust administrative remedies. In Shikles, the court concluded that the charging party failed to exhaust administrative remedies when he “never provided the [EEOC] investigator with any information on his claim of discrimination” beyond that contained in the EEOC charge. Id. at 1307. Similarly, NCL America cites to Dates v. Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Co., 604 F. Supp. 22, 27 (N.D. Ind. 1984), and Green v. Heidelberg U.S.A., 854 F. Supp. 511, 513 (N.D. Ohio 1994), in which Title VII lawsuits were dismissed when the claimants “wholly failed to respond in any manner” to the EEOC investigation. Dates, 604 F. Supp. at 24. These cases are consistent with the decision in Nestle, in which the court concluded that some investigation is required to
11

fulfill the condition precedent of investigation. Nestle, 1982 WL 234 at *1.
In the cases cited by NCL America, there was an absence of any investigation. Here, however, NCL America does not even suggest that the EEOC failed to engage in any investigation. The court therefore concludes that the EEOC fulfilled its investigatory obligation. Unlike in the cases cited by NCL America, the EEOC in this case clearly undertook some investigatory efforts by interviewing two of the charging parties separately over the phone, writing reports of the interviews, and issuing seven separate letters of determination.
Lastly, to the extent NCL America separately challenges the adequacy of the EEOC investigation with regard to PlaintiffIntervenor Samed Kassem’s constructive discharge claim, the court also concludes that the EEOC satisfied the conditions precedent to bringing suit on behalf of Kassem.
Even assuming that the EEOC did not separately investigate Kassem’s constructive discharge claim, the Ninth Circuit has been clear that “the jurisdiction for [a] court action is not limited to the actual EEOC investigation, but can include the scope of an ‘EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.’” Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451, 1456 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Kaplan v. Int’l Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees and Motion
12

Picture Mach. Operators, 525 F.2d 1354, 1359 n.3 (9th Cir. 1975)) (emphasis in original); see also Nestle, 1982 WL 234 at *1. In Sosa, the court concluded that allegations arising after the EEOC charge were “like or reasonably related to” the original EEOC charge filed, such that the new charges could be brought in the lawsuit even if they were not investigated. Id. at 1457.
Here, not only did Kassem file an EEOC charge alleging constructive discharge based on his national origin and religion, but the EEOC also issued a separate letter of determination finding reasonable cause that Kassem was constructively discharged for discriminatory reasons. The separate letter of determination suggests that the EEOC considered Kassem’s charge in its investigation and, more importantly, that NCL America was on notice that Kassem’s claim concerned a constructive discharge. It is also clear that Kassem’s claim--allegedly arising from the same context as Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ actual discharge claims-were reasonably related to the other allegations of discrimination.
Accordingly, the court concludes that the EEOC fulfilled its condition precedent of investigating the EEOC charge prior to bringing suit. The EEOC’s motion for summary judgment on the seventh defense is granted. This does not mean, of course, that evidence regarding the EEOC’s investigation is
13

inadmissible for purposes other than establishing a defense. This ruling only affects ths viability of the seventh defense.
C. Fifth Defense--After-Acquired Evidence. NCL America’s fifth defense concerns the after-acquired evidence doctrine. This defense has been rendered moot by the court’s earlier order of February 20, 2008. D. Sixth Defense-–Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n,
527 U.S. 526 (1999). NCL America has withdrawn the sixth defense. Opp’n at 6. E. Eighth and Ninth Defenses-–Failure to Exhaust
Administrative Remedies. NCL America clarifies that the eighth and ninth defenses (raising exhaustion) are now moot with regard to NCL Corp. and Norwegian Cruise Line, but asserts that the charging parties failed to exhaust administrative remedies against NCL America because the EEOC failed to “conduct a cognizable investigation.” Opp’n at 7. The Ninth Circuit has concluded that “failure to file an EEOC charge is not jurisdictional but is merely a condition precedent to suit.” Albano v. Schering-Plough Corp., 912 F.2d 384, 387 (9th Cir. 1990). Thus, a “plaintiff is not barred from bringing suit by the EEOC’s allegedly incomplete investigation or less than vigorous attempts at conciliation.” Waters v. Heublein, Inc., 547 F.2d 466, 468 (9th Cir. 1976).
14

Moreover, the court has already determined that the EEOC fulfilled its statutory obligation of conducting an investigation prior to bringing suit. The court therefore grants the EEOC’s motion on the eighth and ninth defenses.
F. Tenth Defense–-Lack of Jurisdiction. NCL America asserts in its tenth defense that the court lacks jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the EEOC investigation. As this court has already considered this argument and determined that the EEOC fulfilled its condition precedent of investigation prior to bringing suit, the court grants the EEOC summary judgment on this claim. G. Eleventh Defense-–Legal or Proximate Cause. NCL America has withdrawn the eleventh defense. Opp’n at 8. H. Twelfth Defense–-Intervening and/or Superseding
Causation. The twelfth defense has been withdrawn. Id. I. First, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth
Defenses-–Failure to State a Claim. The crux of NCL America’s first, fifteen, sixteenth, and seventeenth defenses is that the EEOC has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because NCL America acted for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons when discharging Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Opp’n at 9-10.
15

In this court’s February 20, 2008, Order, this court determined that Plaintiffs have presented evidence demonstrating that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding NCL America’s proffered reasons. To the extent the defenses are Rule 12(b)(6) pleading challenges, the defenses fail. However, to the extent the EEOC wants summary judgment on the substantive issues raised by the defenses, the court denies the EEOC summary judgment and leaves those matters for trial.
J. Nineteenth Defense-–Common Law Privileges and Immunities.
NCL America has withdrawn the nineteenth defense. Opp’n at 10.
K. Twentieth Defense–-Evidence Not Made Available. NCL America alleges that the EEOC’s claims are barred “to the extent that evidence necessary for Defendants’ defense is not made available.” Opp’n at 10. NCL America argues that the EEOC failed to timely produce documents with regard to the EEOC’s write-up of an interview conducted with eyewitness Eric Tedtaotao, as well as the EEOC’s correspondence with PlaintiffsIntervenors’ counsel. The EEOC responds that there is no legal authority in support of this “purported defense,” that NCL America has had the opportunity to “conduct extensive discovery,” and that there is “no evidence that the EEOC has improperly withheld discovery.” Reply at 10.
16

NCL America’s concern is more properly addressed in a motion for discovery sanctions, not as an affirmative defense. The court grants the EEOC’s motion with regard to the twentieth defense, without prejudice to the filing of any discovery motion.
L. Twenty-First Defense–-Proceeding as a Class Action.
In its twenty-first defense, NCL America asserts that the EEOC has failed to satisfy the requirements of proceeding as a class action, and that the EEOC should not be permitted to litigate on behalf of unnamed individuals because there has never been a factual allegation of discrimination on a classwide basis. Opp’n at 15-16. NCL America takes issue with the EEOC’s Complaint, which alleges that it is proceeding on behalf of Plaintiffs-Intervenors and “other similarly situated individuals.” Id. at 16; see also Complaint at 2. The EEOC responds that “Rule 23 class certification is not required in action brought by the Commission.” Reply at 10.
In General Telephone Co. of the Northwest, Inc., v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 333 (1980), the Supreme Court concluded that the EEOC may seek classwide relief without certifying a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In General Telephone, four employees filed sex discrimination charges with the EEOC. The EEOC issued a reasonable cause determination finding that the employer had discriminated against female employees. The Court concluded that the EEOC could seek a
17

permanent injunction against the discriminatory practices, remedial action to address the past discrimination, and backpay for those who had been discriminated against, even without first undergoing Rule 23 certification. See id. at 334-35. The Court emphasized that the “EEOC is not merely a proxy for the victims of discrimination” and that the EEOC acts “to vindicate the public interest in preventing employment discrimination.” Id. at 336. In 2000, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed the holding in General Telephone, concluding that the EEOC did not need to seek class certification under Rule 23, even when the EEOC was suing for damages in addition to equitable relief. EEOC v. Dinuba Med. Clinic, 222 F.3d 580, 587 (9th Cir. 2000).
In EEOC v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d 1539 (9th Cir. 1987), the Ninth Circuit noted that “Section 706(g) authorizes the EEOC to seek class action-type relief without complying with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, even when it only alleges individual acts of discrimination.” Id. at 1543 (emphasis added). In Goodyear, an aggrieved employee alleged racial discrimination, and the EEOC determined that reasonable cause supported a finding that the employer had discriminated against the employee. Id. at 1541. The employee subsequently entered into a private settlement agreement with the employer, which disposed of the employee’s claim of discrimination. When the EEOC sought to enjoin the employer from future discrimination
18

against similarly situated individuals, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the employee’s settlement did “not moot the EEOC’s right of action seeking injunctive relief to protect employees as a class and to deter the employer from discrimination.” Id. at 1543.
Similarly, in EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002), the employer required its employees to sign an agreement subjecting all disputes to binding arbitration. An employee filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and the EEOC-without the aggrieved employee--filed suit seeking injunctive relief to address past and future unlawful practices, specific relief for the employee, and punitive damages. Id. at 283. The Court considered whether the employee’s arbitration clause limited the remedies available to the EEOC. The Court noted that the “EEOC is the master of its own case” and concluded that the arbitration clause did not bar the EEOC from pursuing victimspecific judicial relief, which included backpay, reinstatement, and damages. Id. at 291, 295-97.
NCL America contends that, unlike the EEOC investigation and determination in General Telephone, “there has never been any factual allegation of discrimination on a classwide basis: The underlying charges involved a highly discrete discriminatory action as to the seven Intervenors.” Opp’n at 16. The court need not address whether the EEOC adequately alleged
19

discrimination on a classwide basis. In Goodyear, the Ninth Circuit was clear that the EEOC could pursue class-action type injunctive relief even when the EEOC allegation and investigation only concerned individual discrimination.
Further, the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have granted the EEOC great latitude in pursuing different remedies as a means of vindicating the public interest. See, e.g., Waffle House, 534 U.S. at 296 (“[W]henever the EEOC chooses from among the many charges filed each year to bring an enforcement action in a particular case, the agency may be seeking to vindicate a public interest, not simply provide make-whole relief for the employee, even when it pursues entirely victim-specific relief.”).
NCL America cites to EEOC v. Jillian’s of Indianapolis, 279 F. Supp. 2d 974, 980-81 (S.D. Ind. 2003), in arguing that the EEOC should be barred from litigating “on behalf of unnamed classes of individuals who were not reasonably within the scope of the investigation.” In Jillian’s, the EEOC sought to bring suit on behalf of a nationwide class of individuals against all of Jillian’s facilities, even though the charges and investigation related only to Jillian’s of Indianapolis. The court concluded that the nationwide class of plaintiffs did not reasonably grow out of its investigation and, thus, that the EEOC suit could only go forward against the Indianapolis site. Id. at
20

979-80. Unlike Jillian’s, the EEOC does not seek to bring suit against an employer it has never investigated. Here, the EEOC brings suit on behalf of similarly situated individuals against only the employing entity or entities. Further, given the great latitude the EEOC has in seeking remedies the EEOC believes will address both past and future discrimination, the EEOC can seek classwide relief based on discrete acts of determination.
The court thus grants the EEOC’s motion with regard to the twenty-first defense.
M. Twenty-Third Defense–-Preservation of Affirmative Defenses.
In its twenty-third defense, NCL America seeks to preserve the right to raise affirmative defenses that become apparent as the result of discovery. Opp’n at 17. The EEOC objects to this defense, arguing that there is neither factual nor legal authority that supports such a defense. The EEOC argues that NCL America has had an opportunity to conduct discovery, and there is no evidence of improper withholding of discovery by the EEOC. Reply at 11-12.
Under the notice pleading standard of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are required to give a “short and plain statement” of their claims. See e.g., Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2007). NCL America’s twenty-third defense offers no defense and, thus, fails the notice pleading requirement. Moreover, NCL America has by
21

now had sufficient discovery opportunities to make this vague

defense inappropriate. The court grants summary judgment to the

EEOC on the twenty-third defense.

V.

CONCLUSION.

NCL America’s third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eleventh,

twelfth, and nineteenth defenses are no longer before the court,

having been withdrawn or rendered moot. Based on this court’s

previous decisions, the court grants the EEOC’s Motion with

regard to NCL America’s first, fifteenth, sixteenth, and

seventeenth defenses to the extent those are Rule 12(b)(6)

defenses going to the sufficiency of the pleading. However, to

the extent those defenses raise substantive issues, those issues

are left for trial.

Because the court concludes that the EEOC has fulfilled

its statutory obligation to investigate, the court grants the

EEOC summary judgment with regard to the seventh, eighth, ninth,

and tenth defenses. NCL America’s twentieth and twenty-third

defenses are not valid affirmative defenses, and the court grants

the Motion with respect to those defenses. Lastly, because the

EEOC can seek classwide relief without fulfilling the

requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures,

the court grants the EEOC summary judgment on the twenty-first

defense.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 25, 2008.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway Susan Oki Mollway United States District Judge
EEOC v. NCL America, Inc., et al., Civ. Nos. 06-00451, 07-00372 SOM/BMK; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF EEOC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.
23

 
 1 THOMAS M. GEISNESS 1878 The Geisness Law Firm
2 Colman Building, Suite 675 811 First Avenue
3 Seattle, WA. 98104 Telephone: (206) 728-8866
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors
5

HONORABLE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY HONORABLE BARRY M. KURREN

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
7

8 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
9
and
10
ABDULLAH YAHYA, AHMED 11 ALMLHANY, AHMED ALMRAISI,
NAGI A. ALZIAM, MUTHANA A. 12 SHAIBI, NORK YAFAIE, and
SAMED KASSEM,
13
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
14
v.
15
NCL AMERICA, INC. and NCL 16 (BAHAMAS), Ltd., aka
NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINES, 17 LTD.,

18

Defendants.

19

NO. CV06-00451 SOM-BMK NO. CV07-00372 SOM-BMK (Consolidated Cases)
AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS

20
COMES NOW the Plaintiff-Intervenors Abdullah Yahia, Ahmed Al-
21
22 Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie,

23 and Samed Kassem, and, for cause of action against the Defendants, alleges and

24 states as follows:
25

AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 1

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1

I. NATURE OF ACTION

2

1.1 This is an action to recover damages arising from unlawful

3
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
4

5 amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et. seq, the Civil Rights Act of 1991; 42 U.S.C.

6 §1981; and Section 378-2 of Hawaii’s Employment Practices Act, H.R.S.
7
Chapter 378.
8
1.2 Plaintiff-Intervenors have an unconditional statutory right to
9
10 intervene in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and Federal Rule of

11 Civil Procedure 24(a).
12

13

14

2.1 Plaintiff

II. PARTIES Equal Employment

Opportunity

Commission

15 (“Commission”) is the agency of the United States charged with the

16 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly
17
authorized to bring this action under §706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
18
19 §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

20

2.2 Plaintiff-Intervenor Abdullah Yahya is a resident of Tacoma,

21 Washington. At all relevant times, Yahya was an “employee” within the
22
meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f) and was engaged in “employment” with
23
24 Defendants within the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statute §378-1.

25

AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 2

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1

2.3 Plaintiff-Intervenor Ahmed Almlhany is a resident of Dearborn,

2 Michigan. At all relevant times, Almlhany was an “employee” within the
3
meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f) and was engaged in “employment” with
4
5 Defendants within the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statute §378-1.

6

2.4 Plaintiff-Intervenor Ahmed Almraisi is a resident of Tacoma,

7
Washington. At all relevant times, Almraisi was an “employee” within the
8
meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f) and was engaged in “employment” with
9

10 Defendants within the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statute §378-1.

11

2.5 Plaintiff-Intervenor Nagi A. Alziam is a resident of Brooklyn, New

12
York. At all relevant times, Alziam was an “employee” within the meaning of
13

14 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f) and was engaged in “employment” with Defendants within

15 the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statute §378-1.

16

2.6 Plaintiff-Intervenor Muthana A. Shaibi is a resident of Brooklyn,

17
New York. At all relevant times, Shaibi was an “employee” within the meaning
18

19 of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f) and was engaged in “employment” with Defendants

20 within the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statute §378-1.

21

2.7 Plaintiff-Intervenor Nork Yafaie is a resident of Brooklyn, New

22

York. At all relevant times, Yafaie was an “employee” within the meaning of 42
23

24 U.S.C. 2000e-(f) and was engaged in “employment” with Defendants within the

25 meaning of Hawaii Revised Statute §378-1.

AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 3

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1

2.8 Plaintiff-Intervenor Samed Kassem is a resident of Seattle,

2 Washington. At all relevant times, Kassem was an “employee” within the
3
meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(f) and was engaged in “employment” with
4
5 Defendants within the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statute §378-1.

6

2.9 At all relevant times, Defendant NCL America, Inc., a Delaware

7
Corporation, has been continuously doing business within the jurisdiction of the
8
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
9

10

2.10 At all relevant times, Defendant NCL (Bahamas), Ltd. a Bermuda

11 Corporation, aka Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd., along with other entities,

12
oversaw NCL America’s operations within the State of Hawaii.
13

14

2.11 At all relevant times, all Defendants have continuously been

15 employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of

16 sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-(b), (g) and (h), and

17
are employers within the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statute §378-1.
18

19

2.12 At all relevant times, all Defendants have continuously employed

20 fifteen (15) or more persons.

21

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22

3.1 This Court has original jurisdiction over the Plaintiff-Intervenors’
23

24 federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

25

AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 4

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1

3.2 This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff-

2 Intervenors’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
3
3.3 Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(2) and 42 U.S.C.
4
5 §2000e-5(f)(3) as some of the wrongful acts occurred in this Judicial District..

6

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7
4.1 More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit Plaintiff-
8
Intervenors filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
9

10 alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. The Commission issued Letters

11 of Determination finding the Plaintiff-Intervenors were discharged on the basis
12
of their national origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim). All
13
14 conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

15

4.2 More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit Plaintiff-

16 Intervenor Samed Kassem filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission
17
alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. The Commission issued a Letter
18
19 of Determination finding that Plaintiff-Intervenor Samed Kassem was

20 constructively discharged on the basis of his nation origin (Yemeni/Middle

21 Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim). All conditions precedent to the institution of
22
this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
23

24

4.3 Since at least July 2004, Defendants have engaged in unlawful

25 employment practices at their Hawaii and Miami facilities, in violation of

AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 5

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1 §703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), and Hawaii Revised Statute §378-2,

2 by, inter alia, discharging the Plaintiff-Intervenors’ on the basis of their national
3
origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim).
4

5

4.4 The effect of the actions complained of above has been to deprive

6 the Plaintiff-Intervenors and other individuals of equal employment opportunities

7
and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees on the basis of their
8
national origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim).
9

10

4.5 The effect of the actions complained of above has been to deprive

11 Plaintiff-Intervenor Samed Kassem and other individuals of equal employment
12
opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as employee on the basis
13
14 of his national origin (Yemeni/Middle Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim).

15

4.6 The unlawful employment practices complained of above were

16 intentional.
17
4.7 The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done
18
19 with malice and/or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of

20 Plaintiff-Intervenors and other similarly situated individuals.

21

4.8 The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done

22

with malice and/or with reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiff-Intervenors
23

24 and other similarly situated individuals that are protected by the laws of the State

25 of Hawaii.

AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 6

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1

4.9 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ aforesaid acts,

2 Plaintiff-Intervenors and other similarly situated individuals have each suffered
3
emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation
4
5 and damages, according to proof.

6

4.10 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ aforesaid acts,

7
Plaintiff-Intervenors and other similarly situated individuals have each suffered a
8
loss of earnings in amounts according to proof.
9

10

V. CLAIM ALLEGATIONS

11

Employment Discrimination

12
5.1 Defendants’ conduct, described above, constituted discrimination on
13

14 the basis of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ national origin in violation of 42 U.S.C.

15 §2000e-2(a).

16

5.2 Defendants’ conduct, described above, constituted discrimination on

17
the basis of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ religion in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a).
18

19

5.3 Defendants’ conduct, described above, constituted discrimination on

20 the basis of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ national origin in violation of §42 U.S.C.

21 §1981.
22
5.4
23

Defendants’ conduct, described above, constituted discrimination on

24 the basis of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ ancestry in violation of Hawaii Revised Statute

25 §378-2.

AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 7

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1

5.5 Defendants’ conduct, described above, constituted discrimination on

2 the basis of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ religion in violation of Hawaii Revised Statute
3
§378-2.
4

5

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

6

5.6 Defendants’ intentionally and/or recklessly inflicted emotional

7
distress on Plaintiff-Intervenors. Defendants’ actions were outrageous and
8
directly and proximately caused Plaintiff-Intervenors’ injuries, including
9

10 emotional distress.

11

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

12
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenors pray for judgment against
13

14 Defendants as follows:

15

6.1 For special and general compensatory damages on all of their claims

16 in an amount to be proven at trial;
17
6.2 For punitive damages for violation of 42 U.S.C §1981; 42 U.S.C.
18
19 §§ 2000e-2(a) and H.R.S. 378-2.

20

6.3 For back pay.

21

6.4 For front pay and other past and future pecuniary losses.

22

6.5 For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
23

24 2000e-5(k) and/or the Laws of the State of Hawaii.

25 ////

AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 8

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

1

VII. JURY DEMAND

2

7.1 Messrs. Yahya, Allmlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi, Yafaie, and

3
Kassem respectfully requests that this matter be tried to a jury of their peers.
4

5

DATED this 7th day of March, 2008 at Seattle, Washington.

6

7

8

S/ Thomas M. Geisness

THOMAS M. GEISNESS

9

Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS - 9

THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 728-8866; Fax (206) 728-1173

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED )

ALMLHANY, AHMED

)

ALMRAISI, NAGI A. ALZIAM, )

MUTHANA A. SHAIBI, NORK )

YAFAIE, and SAMED KASSAM, )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

)

vs.

)

)

NCL AMERICA INC.,

)

NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE

)

LTD., and NORWEGIAN

)

CORPORATION LTD.,

)

)

_____________________________ )

CV. NO. 06-00451 SPK-BMK
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF EEOC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST NCL AMERICA INC. UNDER FRCP 37 [DOCKET 119] AND PLAINTIFF EEOC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST NCL CORPORATION LTD. UNDER FRCP 37 [DOCKET 121]; AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [DOCKET 130]

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF EEOC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST NCL AMERICA INC. UNDER FRCP 37 [DOCKET 119] AND
PLAINTIFF EEOC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST NCL
CORPORATION LTD. UNDER FRCP 37 [DOCKET 121]; AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [DOCKET 130]

Plaintiff EEOC’s Motions to Compel Production of Documents and for Discovery Sanctions Against Defendant NCL America Inc. and against Defendant NCL Corporation Ltd. [Docket Nos. 119 and 121] (the “Motions to Compel”) came on for hearing before this Court on September 14, 2007 at 2:00 pm. Connie Liem appeared for Plaintiff EEOC, Thomas Geisness appeared for Plaintiff-Intervenors, and Richard Rand and Christopher Yeh appeared for Defendants.
The Court having reviewed the Motions to Compel, the Memoranda In Opposition, and Reply Memoranda finds that Plaintiff did not comply with Local Rule 7.5 in filing its Motion to Compel Against NCL America Inc. [Docket No. 119]. As a sanction, the Court DENIES both Motions to Compel without prejudice. Defendants request for further sanctions is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Barry M. Kurren United States Magistrate Judge Dated: October 3, 2007
EEOC V. NCL AMERICA INC.; CV. NO. 06-00451 SPK-BMK; ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF EEOC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST NCL AMERICA INC. UNDER FRCP 37 [DOCKET 119] AND PLAINTIFF EEOC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST NCL CORPORATION LTD. UNDER FRCP 37 [DOCKET 121]; AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [DOCKET 130]
2

 
 ANNA Y. PARK (CA SBN 164242) CONNIE K. LIEM (TX SBN 791113) VICTOR VIRAMONTES (CA SBN 214158) ANGELA D. MORRISON (NV SBN 9630) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 401 B St., Suite 510 San Diego, CA. 92101 Phone: (619) 557-7282 Facsimile: (619) 557-7274 E-Mail: connie.liem@eeoc.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

CIVIL NO. CV 06-00451 SOM BMK CIVIL NO. CV 07-00372 SOM BMK

Plaintiff, and

ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LIMITED (Doc. # 302)

ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED ALMLHANY, AHMED ALMRAISI, NAGI A. ALZIAM, MUTHANA A. SHAIBI, NORK YAFAIE, and SAMED KASSAM,

The Honorable Susan O. Mollway U.S. District Court Judge

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

Trial Date: April 1, 2008

vs.

NCL AMERICA, INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., AND NORWEGIAN CORPORATION LTD.
Defendants.
ORDER Having considered the Parties’ Joint Stipulation (Doc. # 302) requesting an order to dismiss, the Court grants such request. Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Limited is hereby dismissed with prejudice from this matter. Any issue as to costs and fees shall be addressed to this Court.
APPROVED AND SO ORDERED: DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; February 19, 2008.
/s/Susan Oki Mollway SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED ALMLHANY, AHMED ALMRAISI, NAGI A. ALZIAM, MUTHANA A. SHAIBI, NORK YAFAIE, and SAMED KASSAM, v. NCL AMERICA, INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., AND NORWEGIAN CORPORATION LTD.; CIVIL NO. CV 06-00451 SOM BMK; CIVIL NO. CV 07-00372 SOM BMK; ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LIMITED (Doc. # 302)
2

 
 DAPHNE E. BARBEE 2911 Attorney at Law 1188 Bishop #1909 Honolulu, HI. 96813 Telephone: (808) 533-0275
THOMAS M. GEISNESS 1878 The Geisness Law Firm Colman Building, Suite 675 811 First Avenue Seattle, WA. 98104 Telephone: (206) 728-8866
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors

HONORABLE SAMUEL P. KING HONORABLE BARRY M. KURREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED ALMLHANY, AHMED ALMRAISI, NAGI A. ALZIAM, MUTHANA A. SHAIBI, NORK YAFAIE, and SAMED KASSAM,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
NCL AMERICA, INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE Ltd., and NORWEGIAN CORPORATION Ltd.,
Defendants.

NO. CV06-00451 SPK-BMK
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
HONORABLE BARRY M.KURREN Hearing Date: September 14, 2007 Hearing Time: 2:00 p.m.

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE - 1

AHMED ALMLHANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
NCL AMERICA, INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE Ltd., and NORWEGIAN CORPORATION Ltd.,
Defendants.

NO. CV07-00372 ACK-LEK

MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO CONSOLIDATE COMES NOW Abdullah Yahia, Ahmed Almlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, and Samed Kassam, by and through their counsel Thomas M. Geisness, and moves this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, for an Order consolidating the two above-captioned cases as they involve common questions of law and fact. This motion is supported by the following memorandum and attached Declaration of Thomas M. Geisness.
MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this action alleging that Intervenors were subjected to unlawful employment practices on the bases of their national origin and/or religion during their employment with the defendants. The action was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE - 2

Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. (Hawaii District Court Cause No. CV0600451 SPK-BMK, Docket #1).
On November 15,2006, the Honorable Barry M. Kurren signed an Order granting Intervenors above leave to Intervene and assert claims under Federal and Hawaii State Law which they did on November 22, 2006. (Hawaii District Court Cause No. CV06-00451 SPK-BMK, Docket #23, #24).
All Intervenors are of the same national origin (Yemeni) and religion (Muslim) and all, Intervenors, except Mr. Kassam, were terminated from their employment with defendants at the same time and under similar circumstance. Intervenors allege that Mr. Kassam was constructively discharged a short time later.
Hawaii state law requires that before a claimant can bring an employment discrimination suit under Hawaii State law, he must receive a right to sue letter from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission (HCRC). Haw. Rev. Stat. §378-4; §368-3(1); §368-11; §368-12. Mr. Almlhany received a right to sue from the HCRC on or about April 16, 2007 and he filed a Complaint alleging causes of action under Hawaii State Law on July 12, 2007.1 (Hawaii District Court Cause No. CV07-00372 ACK-LEK, Docket #1).
1 Mr. Yahya and Mr. Almraisi received right to sue letters from the HCRC on or about November 17, 2006, prior to filing of their Complaint in Intervention.
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE - 3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides: When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all of the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 42(a)(emphasis added) The purpose of this rule is to enhance trial court efficiency and to avoid the substantial danger of inconsistent adjudications that may result from trial before different judges or juries. Thus, the single essential prerequisite to consolidation is questions of law or fact common to the cases that are to be consolidated. Enterprise Bank v. Saettele, 21 F.3d 233 (8th Cir. 1994). Here, Mr. Almlhany’s Hawaii State Law claims involve questions of law and fact that are common with the questions of law and fact presented by the other Intervenors Federal and Hawaii State Law claims. As such, the two matters should be consolidated so as to streamline the resolution of the issues and eliminate the danger of inconsistent verdicts. DATED this 13th day of August, 2007 at Seattle, Washington. THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM

S/ Thomas M. Geisness

__

THOMAS M. GEISNESS. WSBA#1878

Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE - 4

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED )

ALMLHANY, AHMED

)

ALMRAISI, NAGI A. ALZIAM, )

MUTHANA A. SHAIBI, NORK )

YAFAIE, and SAMED KASSAM, )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

)

v.

)

)

NCL AMERICA, INC.,

)

NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE

)

LTD., and NORWEGIAN

)

CORPORATION LTD.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________ )

AHMED ALMLHANY,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

NCL AMERICA, INC.,

)

NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE

)

LTD., and NORWEGIAN

)

CORPORATION LTD.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________ )

CV. NO. 06-00451 SPK-BMK [CONSOLIDATED]
CV. NO. 07-00372 ACK-LEK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Plaintiff-Intervenors in U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, et al. v. NCL America, Inc., et al., Civil No. 06-00451 SPK-BMK and Plaintiff in Ahmed Almlhany v. NCL America, Inc., et al., Civil No. 07-00372 ACK-LEK have moved to consolidate the two cases. The motion is not opposed by any party. The Motion is hereby GRANTED because both lawsuits involve issues that are substantially related and consolidation will serve the interests of justice and further judicial economy. It is also ordered that all further pleadings shall be filed and docketed in Civil No. 06-00451 SPK-BMK. An entry shall be made in the docket of Civil No. 07-00372 indicating all further filings relevant to Civil No. 07-00372 shall be filed only in Civil No. 06-00451. IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Barry M. Kurren United States Magistrate Judge Dated: September 17, 2007
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL. V. NCL AMERICA, INC., ET AL.; CV. NO. 06-00451 SPK-BMK; AHMED ALMLHANY V. NCL AMERICA, INC., ET AL.; CV. NO. 07-00372 ACKLEK; ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE.
2

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 8462

1 Anna Y. Park, CA SBN 164242 Connie Liem, TX SBN 791113
2 Victor Viramontes, CA SBN 214158 Ang~la Morrison, NV SBN 9630
3 EQUALENWLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
4 255 East Temgle Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles CA 90012
5 Telephone: ?213) 894-1083 Facstmile: 213) 894-1301
6 1adoJe al eeoc. ov
7 Attort?-eys for Plaintiff EQUAL ENWLOYMENT
8 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
9 Richard M. Rand, HI SBN 2773-0 Christopher S. Yeh~.I. jl SBN 6777-0
10 M10A01RBRt2sJhOoNp ESSt.,& wANG LLP 11 1550 Pauah1 Tower
Honolulu, Ill. 96813
12 Telephone: (808) 536-4900 Facsimile (808) 536-6700
13 rrand@marrjones.com

14 Attorneys for Defendants

15

NCL, AMERICA INC. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., et al.

16

17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18
DISTRICT OF HAWAll

19
EOUALEMPLOYMENT 20 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

CASE NO. CV 06-00451 SOM BMK.

21

Plaintiff,

CV 07-00372 SOMBMK.

22

v.

23 NCL, AMERICA, INC., et. al.,

24
Defendants, and 25
26 ABDULLA YAIDA, et al.,

27

Plaintiff-Intervenors.

(PROPOSED) CONSENT DECREE; ORDER
The Honorable Susan 0. Mollway U.S. District Court Judge

28

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 8463

1

I.

2

INTRODUCTION

3

Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC" or

4
"Commission") and Defendant NCL America Inc. (hereinafter "Defendant")
5
6 hereby stipulate and agree to entry ofthis Consent Decree to resolve the

7 Commission's Complaint filed under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
8
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seg. ("Title VII"), alleging that Abdullah Yahia
9
10 (aka "Yahva"), Ahmed Al-Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A.

11 Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, and Samed Kassem (hereinafter "Charging Parties" or
12
"Plaintiff-Intervenors"), and other similarly situated individuals were subjected to
13
14 unlawful employment practices on the basis their national origin (Yemeni/Middle-

15 Eastern) and/or religion (Muslim) in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII.

16
II.
17

18

PURPOSES AND SCOPE OF THE CONSENT DECREE

19

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

20
Defendant. The scope ofthis Decree includes Defendant's cruise ship the Pride of
21

22 America, collectively referred to and doing business as NCL America in the State

23 of Hawaii. This Decree shall be binding on and enforceable against Defendant and
24
its officers, directors, agents, successors and assigns.
25

26

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

27

2

28

[PROPOSED} CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 8464

1

1. To provide appropriate monetary and injunctive relief;

2 2. To ensure that Defendant's employment practices comply with
3

4

federallaw;

5

3. To ensure a work environment free from discrimination and

6
retaliation;
7

8

4. To ensure training for Defendant's managers and employees

9

with respect to their obligations under Title VII; and

10
5. To provide an appropriate and effective mechanism for
11

12

handling discrimination complaints in the workplace.

13

III.

14
RELEASE OF CLAIMS
15

16

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

17 allegations by the EEOC against Defendant and NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. that are
18
raised in the EEOC's First Amended Complaint filed in this action in the United
19
20 States District Court, District of Hawaii, captioned US. Equal Employment

21 Opportunity Commission, v. NCL America, Inc., et al.; Case No. CV 06-00451
22 SOM(B:MK).
23

24

B. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude any party from

25 bringing suit to enforce this Decree in the event that any party hereto fails to 26

27

3

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 8465

1 perform the promises and representations contained herein.
2
C. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to limit or reduce
3
4 Defendant's obligation to comply fully with Title VII or any other federal

5 employment statute.
6 D. This Decree in no way affects the EEOC's right to bring, process,
7
8 investigate or litigate other charges that may be in existence or may later arise

9 against Defendant in accordance with standard EEOC procedures.

10
IV.
11

12

JURISDICTION

13

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

14 this lawsuit. The Complaint asserts claims that, ifproven, would authorize the
15

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

17 provisions ofthis Decree are fair, reasonable andjust. This Decree conforms with 18
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII and is not in derogation of the
19
20 rights or privileges of any person.

21

B. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action during the duration of

22

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

24 be necessary to implement the reliefprovided herein.

25

26

27

4

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 8466

1

v.

2 EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF DECREE
3

4

A. The provisions and agreements contained herein are effective

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

6
Effective Date").
7

8

B. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Decree shall remain in

9 effect for two (2) years after the Effective Date.

10
VI.
11

12

MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY

13

A. This Decree constitutes the complete understanding ofthe parties with

14
respect to the matters contained herein. No waiver, modification or amendment of
15

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

17 an authorized representative of each of the parties.
18
B. If one or more provisions of the Decree are rendered unlawful or
19
20 unenforceable, the parties shall make good faith efforts to agree upon appropriate

21 amendments to this Decree in order to effectuate the purposes of the Decree. In 22
any event, the remaining provisions will remain in full force and effect unless the
23
24 purposes of the Decree cannot, despite the parties' best efforts, be achieved.

25

c. By mutual agreement ofthe parties, this Decree may be amended or

26

27

5

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 8467

1 modified in the interests ofjustice and fairness in order to effectuate the provisions

2
ofthis Decree. 3

4

VII.

5

COMPLIANCE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

6 A. The parties expressly agree that ifthe Commission has reason to
7

8 believe that Defendant has failed to comply with any provision of this Consent

9 Decree, the Commission may bring an action before this Court to enforce the
10 Decree. Prior to initiating such action, the Commission will notify Defendant and
11
12 its legal counsel of record, in writing, of the nature of the dispute. This notice shall

13 specify the particular provision{s) that the Commission believes Defendant has
14 breached. Absent a showing by either party that the delay will cause irreparable
15
16 harm, Defendant shall have sixty (60) days to attempt to resolve or cure the breach.

17

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

18
efforts to resolve any dispute referenced in the EEOC notice.
19

20

c. After sixty (60) days have passed with no resolution or agreement to

21 extend the time further, the Commission may petition this Court for resolution of
22
the dispute, seeking all available relief, including an extension of the term of the
23

24 Decree for such period of time as Defendant is shown to be in breach of the Decree

25 and the Commission's costs and attorneys' fees incurred in securing compliance 26

27

6

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 8468

1 with the Decree. 2
3 4

VIII.
MONETARY RELIEF

5

A. In settlement of this lawsuit, Defendant shall pay $485,000, attorneys'

6
fees, and costs. Defendant shall remit payment ofthe global settlement amount
7
8 made out to the client trust account of Thomas Geisness, Esq., counsel for

9 Plaintiff-Intervenors. The monies shall be designated as non-wage compensation
10
under Title VII and no tax withholding shall be made. Defendant shall prepare and
11
12 distribute 1099 tax reporting fonns to each Charging Party/Plaintiff-Intervenor and

13 shall make appropriate reports to the Internal Revenue Service and other tax

14
authorities.
15

16

C. Within three (3) business days ofthe issuance ofthe settlement checks

17 and 1099 fonns, Defendant shall submit a copy ofthe same and related 18
correspondence to the Regional Attorney, Anna Y. Park, U.S. Equal Employment
19
20 Opportunity Commission, 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

21 90012. 22
D. NCL agrees to submit payment under this Consent Decree via company
23
24 check to Intervenor's Counsel. At such time as the Court approves the Consent

25 Decree and payment is made by NCL, the EEOC shall dismiss NCL (Bahamas) 26

27

7

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

I I;
Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 8 of 22 8469

PageID #:

1 Ltd. as a party in this action.

2 IX.
3

4

ADDITIONAL RELIEF TO CHARGING PARTIES

5

A. Upon request, Defendant shall provide all Charging Parties with a

6 neutral job reference by confmning dates of employment, job title, and
7

8 confirmation that the short term of employment was not related to performance.

9

B. All the Charging Parties' personnel records shall be purged of

10
information reflecting involuntary termination, and all negative complaints,
11

12 reports, criticisms, and any other documents reflecting negatively on their job

13 performance. 14 15 16

X.
GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

17

A. Non-Discrimination

18
1. Discrimination Based on National Origin and Religion
19

20

Defendant, its officers, agents, management (including all supervisory

21 employees), successors, assigns, and all those in active concert or participation 22
with them, or any of them, are hereby enjoined from: (a) discriminating against 23
24 persons on the basis of national origin and religion in the terms and conditions of

25 employment; (b) engaging in or be a party to any action, policy or practice that is 26

27

8

28

(PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 8470

1 intended or is known to them to have the effect of harassing or intimidating any
2 employee on the basis of national origin and religion; and (c) creating, facilitating
3
4 or permitting the existence of a work environment that is hostile to employees on

5 the basis of national origin and religion.

6
2. Retaliation
7

8

Defendant, its officers, agents, management (including all supervisory

9 employees), successors, assigns, and all those in active concert or participation
10
with them, or any ofthem, are hereby enjoined from engaging in, implementing or
11
12 permitting any action, policy or practice with the purpose of retaliating against any

13 current or former employee or applicant ofDefendant, because he or she has in the
14
past, or during the term of this Decree: (a) opposed any practice made unlawful 15
16 under Title VII; (b) filed a charge of discrimination alleging such practice; (c)

17 testified or participated in any manner in any investigation (including without 18
limitation, any internal investigation undertaken by Defendant), proceeding in
19
20 connection with this case and/or relating to any claim of a Title VII violation; (d)

21 was identified as a possible witness or claimant in this action; (e) asserted any 22
rights under this Decree; or (t) sought and/or received any relief in accordance with
23
24 this Decree.

25
26

27

9

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 8471

1

B. Posting

2 Within ten (10) business days after the Effective Date and throughout the

3

i' '

4 term of this Decree, Defendant shall post notice (attached as Exhibit "A") of the

5 terms of this Decree in at least three clearly visible locations frequented by

6
employees at its facilities and Pride of America.
7

8

c. Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant

9

Within thirty days (30) after the Effective Date, Defendant shall retain an

10
outside Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant ("Consultant") with 11

12 demonstrated experience in the area of employment discrimination on the basis of

13 national origin and religion, to review Defendant's employment policies and
14
procedures to be in compliance with Title VII and the provisions of this Decree. 15
16 The Consultant sJ:lall be subject to the Commission's approval, which shall not be

17 unreasonably withheld. If the Commission does not approve Defendant's proposed
18
Consultant, the Commission shall provide Defendant with a list of at least three
19
20 suggested candidates acceptable to the Commission. Defendant shall bear all costs

21 associated with the selection and retention of the Consultant and the performance 22
of his/her/its duties. The Consultant shall assist Defendant in reviewing and
23
24 revising its policies and procedures regarding, inter alia:

25

1. Handling complaints of discrimination, harassment and

26

27

10

28

(PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 8472

retaliation;

2
2. Employee rights and responsibilities under Title VII, including
3

4

but not limited to the responsibilities to provide a workplace free of

5

discrimination, and employee rights relating to national origin and religious

6
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. 7

8

D. Revision of Policies Concerning Discrimination

9

With the assistance ofthe Consultant, Defendant shall review, and if

10
necessary, revise its policy on discrimination and retaliation, and provide a copy to
11

l2 the Commission within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date. The revised policy,

13 if necessary, shall include:

14
1. A clear explanation of prohibited conduct including without
15

16

limitation racial or national origin stereotyping and/or profiling;

17

2. Assurance that employees who make complaints of

18
discrimination or provide information related to such complaints will be
19

20

protected against retaliation;

21

3. A clearly described complaint process that provides accessible

22 and confidential avenues of complaint with contact information including
23

24

name (if applicable), address, and telephone number ofpersons both internal

25

(i.e., human resources) and external to Defendant (i.e., Commission and

26

27

ll

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 8473

1

outside Consultant available to handle complaints concerning high-level

2
company officials of Defendant's corporate hierarchy) to whom employees
3

4

may report discrimination, harassment and retaliation, including a written

5

statement that the employee may report the discriminatory behavior to

6 designated persons outside their chain of management;
7

8

4. Assurance that the employer will protect the confidentiality of

9

discrimination complaints to the extent possible;

10
5. A complaint process that provides a prompt, thorough, and
11

12

impartial investigation;

13

6. A procedure for communicating with the complainant in

14 writing regarding the status of the complaint/investigation, results of the
15

16

investigation, and any remedial action taken; and

17

7. Assurance that Defendant will take immediate and appropriate

18 corrective action when it determines that discrimination and/or retaliation
19

20

has occurred.

21

This policy shall immediately be distributed to all of Defendant's employees

22
(including management/supervisory staff and hourly employees), and shall be
23

24 included in any relevant policy or employee manuals distributed to employees by

25 Defendant. Defendant shall collect acknowledgments from each employee who 26

27

12

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 8474

1 receives the revised policy. Throughout the term of this Decree, Defendant shall
2
make accessible and post the revised policy in a place that is conspicuous and
3
4 accessible to all employees at each of its locations covered by this Decree in a

5 legible font that is a minimum of 14 points in size.

6
E. Training
7

8

Within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date or thirty (30) days after hiring

9 the Consultant, whichever is later, all of Defendant's managerial/
10 supervisory and staff/hourly employees at each of Defendant's facilities and the
11
12 cruise ship Pride ofAmerica, and all of the persons involved in Defendant's
13 handling of the incident(s) or subject of the Amended complaint who remain
14
employed by Defendant at any of its affiliates, shall be required to attend an 15
16 intensive in-person training program of at least two (2) hours for managerial

17 employees and two (2) hours for staff/hourly employees.
18
All persons subject to the training requirement in this section include (1)
19
20 Miami-based managers/supervisors Miguel Pilgram, Matthew Lewis, and George

21 Chesney, and (2) all Hawaii-based directors, mangers, supervisors, including but
22
not limited to, Security Officers, Safety Managers, Surveillance Managers, and
23
24 Directors/Managers of Human Resources.

25

The training shall be mandatory and occur once every year for the term of

26

27

13

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 8475

1 this Decree. Each staff/hourly employee shall be required to attend one training

2 session each year, in a language that each employee best understands.
3

4

1. All employees' training shall include coverage ofthe subjects

5

of equal employment opportunity rights and responsibilities, race and

6
national origin discrimination, religious discrimination, retaliation, and
7

8

Defendant's revised policies and procedures for reporting and handling

9

complaints of discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

10
2. The training ofmanagerial employees shall additionally include
11

12

training on how to properly handle and investigate complaints of

13

discrimination and/or harassment in a neutral manner, how to take

14
preventive and corrective measures against discrimination and/or retaliation,
15

16

and how to recognize and prevent discrimination and/or retaliation.

17

3. For the remainder of the term of this Decree, all new employees

18
and all employees recently promoted from a staff/hourly to a managerial
19

20

position shall receive the managerial or staff/hourly employee training, as

21

appropriate, within thirty (30) days ofhire or promotion.

22 4. After the initial training as specified above, all employees shall
23

24

receive the training at least annually thereafter for the remainder of the term

25

of this Decree.

26

27

14

28

(PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

t.

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 8476

1

5. All employees required to attend such training shall verify their

2 annual attendance in writing.
3

4

Within forty-five (45) days after the Effective Date, Defendant shall submit

5 to the EEOC a description of the training to be provided and at1 outline of the
6
curriculum developed for the trainees. Defendant shall give the EEOC a minimum 7
8 often (10) business days' advance written notice of the date, time and location of

9 each training program provided pursuant to this Decree, and agrees that an EEOC

10
representative may attend any such training program.
11

12

The EEO Consultant shall report to the President and have an annual

13 meeting with the President, either in person or via video conference, on the
14
progress of Consent Decree compliance and EEO laws. During this annual
15
16 meeting, the EEO Consultant shall ensure that the President is kept abreast ofthe

17 revised employment policies and procedures, and Defendant's obligations under
18
Title VII regarding national origin and religious discrimination. During these
19
20 annual meetings, the EEO Consultant shall also report to the President regarding

21 compliance with the Decree and provide any feed back regarding compliance with
22 Title VII.
23

24

F. Performance Evaluations

25

Defendant shall hold its managers, supervisors, and human resources

26

27

15

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 8477

1 personnel accountable for engaging in discrimination, or for failing to comply
2 with Defendant's equal employment opportunity and anti-retaliation policies and
3
4 procedures in such supervisory employee's annual performance evaluation.

5

XI.

6
RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING
7

8

A. Record Keeping

9

1. Defendant shall submit documents to the EEOC verifying the

10
occurrence of all training sessions and names and positions of all attendees for
11

12 each session as required under this Decree.

13

Defendant shall make the aforementioned records available to the EEOC

14
within ten (10) business days following a written request by the EEOC.
15

16

B. Reporting

17

In addition to the notices to the EEOC specified above, Defendant shall

18
provide the following reports to the EEOC in writing, by mail or facsimile: 19

20

1. Within ninety (90) days after the Effective Date, Defendant

21

shall submit to the EEOC an initial report which contains:

22 (a) A copy of the revised discrimination and anti-retaliation
23

24

policy;

25

(b) A summary of the procedures and record-keeping

26

27

16

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 8478

1

methods developed with the Consultant for centralized

2 tracking of discrimination complaints and the monitoring
3

4

of such complaints;

5

(c) A statement confirming that the required notices

6
pertaining to this Decree and the revised discrimination
7

8

and anti-retaliation policies have been posted; and

9

(d) Written verification that all employees signed

10
acknowledgment forms indicating receipt of the revised
11

12

anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policy.

13

2. Defendant shall also provide the following reports semi-

14
annually throughout the term of this Decree:
15

16

(a) Written verification that all training sessions required

17

under this Decree that took place during the previous six

18
months;
19

20

(b) Written verification that all new employees hired during

21

the previous six months signed acknowledgment forms

22 confirming they received the revised anti-discrimination
23

24

policy; and

25

(c) A description of all discrimination and/or retaliation

26

27

17

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 8479

I

complaints made since the submission of the immediately

2
preceding report hereunder. This description shall 3

4

include the names ofthe individuals alleging

5

discrimination or retaliation, the names of the alleged

6
perpetrators ofdiscrimination or retaliation, the dates of 7

8

the alleged discrimination or retaliation, a brief summary

9

of how each complaint was resolved, and the identity of

10
the person(s) who investigated or resolved each
11

12

complaint. If no results have been reached as of the time

13

of the report, the result shall be included in the next

14
report.
15

16

XII.

17

COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

18
OF CONSENT DECREE
19

20

Defendant shall bear all costs associated with its administration and

21 implementation of its obligations under this Consent Decree.
22
xm.
23

24

COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES

25

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

26

',

27

18

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 8480

1

XIV.

2
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
3

4

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

5 potential successor-in-interest with a copy ofthis Consent Decree within a
6
reasonable time of not less than thirty (30) days prior to the execution of any
7
8 agreement for acquisition or assumption of control of any or all ofDefendant's

9 facilities, or any other material change in corporate structure, and shall

10
simultaneously inform the EEOC of same.
11

12

B. During the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant and its successors

13 shall assure that each of its officers, managers and supervisors is aware of any

14
term(s) ofthis Decree which may be related to his/her job duties.
15

16

C. Unless otherwise stated, all notices, reports and correspondence

17 required under this Decree shall be delivered to the attention ofthe Regional
18
Attorney, Anna Y. Park, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los
19
20 Angeles District Office, 255 E. Temple St., 4th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90012.

21

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

22

approval by the Court.
23

24

All parties, through the undersigned, respectfully apply for and consent to

25 the entry ofthis Consent Decree Order.
26

27

19

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 20 of 22 PageID #: 8481

1

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

2

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

3
Date: ------,---'2008

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

4

AnnaY.Park

j·

5

Connie K. Liem

6

Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

7 Date: Mc'l ( L- ,2008
8 9 10

Richard Rand Christopher Yeh Attorneys for Defendants

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

20

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 21 of 22 PageID #: 8482

1

EQUAL EMPLOY1v.IBNT

.....

2
3 Date: ~l Jd--· ,2008

;:~SSION

By. v

Q

! .

4

:

AnnaY.Park

1".

5

Connie K. Liem

I

6

Attorneys for Plafnti.:ffEEOC

7 Date: MG-1_ ( ~ 2008

By: &_ {!vd-!?.---

8

Richard Rand

9

ChristOpher Yeh

10

Attorneys for Defendants

11

12

. I
I

13

14

lS
~
16

17

18

I.

19

20

21 22

23

24

25

26

27

10

28

[P.ROPOS&D] CoNSENT DBCRB.!; Oru:>BR.

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 341-2 Filed 05/15/08 Page 22 of 22 PageID #: 8483

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

3 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING,

4

The Court hereby retains jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the Decree.

5 The provisions ofthe foregoing Consent Decree and compliance with all

6 provisions thereof, are hereby APPROVED, AND SO ORDERED.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9
10 Date:
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18

The Honorable Susan 0. Mollway United States District Judge

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

21

28

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

 
 Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 351 Filed 06/04/08 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 8516

ANNA Y. PARK (CA SBN 164242) CONNIE K. LIEM (TX SBN 791113) VICTOR VIRAMONTES (CA SBN 214158) ANGELA D. MORRISON (NV SBN 9630) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 401 B St., Suite 510 San Diego, CA. 92101 Phone: (619) 557-7282 Facsimile: (619) 557-7274 E-Mail: connie.liem@eeoc.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL NO. CV 06-00451 SOM BMK CIVIL NO. CV 07-00372 SOM BMK

and ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED ALMLHANY, AHMED ALMRAISI, NAGI A. ALZIAM, MUTHANA A. SHAIBI, NORK YAFAIE, and SAMED KASSAM,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
vs. NCL AMERICA, INC., AND NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD.,
Defendants.

ORDER ON CONSENT DECREE (DOC. # 341)
The Honorable Susan O. Mollway U.S. District Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 351 Filed 06/04/08 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 8517
ORDER On May 15, 2008, a Proposed Consent Decree (Doc. # 341) was submitted for the Court’s approval and entry. Good cause appearing, the Court hereby retains jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the Decree. The provisions of the foregoing Consent Decree (Doc. # 341) and compliance with all provisions thereof, are hereby APPROVED and ORDERED. APPROVED AND SO ORDERED: DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; June 3, 2008.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED ALMLHANY, AHMED ALMRAISI, NAGI A. ALZIAM, MUTHANA A. SHAIBI, NORK YAFAIE, and SAMED KASSAM vs. NCL AMERICA, INC., AND NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD.; CIVIL NO. CV 0600451 SOM BMK; CIVIL NO. CV 07-00372 SOM BMK; ORDER ON CONSENT DECREE (DOC. # 341)
1

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 351 Filed 06/04/08 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 8518
2

 
 ORIGINAL Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 356 Filed 06/04/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 8527
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF HAWAll

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff(s),
ABDULLAH YAHIA; AHMED ALMLHANY; AHMED ALRRAISI, NAG! A. ALZIAM; MUTHANA A. SHAIBI; NORK YAFAlE; SAMED KASSEM
Plaintiff-Intervenors
v.
NCL AMERICA, INC. and NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., aka NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINES, LTD.
Defendant(s).

AMENDED JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE Case: CV 06-00451 SOM-BMK
FILED IN TilE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF !IAWAll June 4, 2008
At 4 o'clock and 00 min p.m. SUE BEITIA, CLERK

[ ] Jury Vcrdict. This action can1e before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.
[.f] Decision by Court. This action came for hearing before the Court. The issues have been
heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered pursuant to the following orders: I) "Order Denying Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, Granting NCL Corporation Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Both of EEOC's Counter Motions for Summary Judgment Against Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., and NCL Corporation Ltd., and Denying Both of Plaintiffs-Intervenors' Counter Motions for Summary Judgment Against Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. and NCL Corporation, Ltd.", filed on February 1, 2008; 2) "Order on Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Norwegian Cruise Line Limited (Doc. 302)" filed on February 20, 2008; 3) "Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part NCL America, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment as to All Claims by or on Behalf of Plaintiff-Intervenor Samed Kassem; Order Granting in Part and Denying

Case 1:06-cv-00451-SOM-BMK Document 356 Filed 06/04/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 8528
CV 06-00451 SOM-BMK EEOC Vs. NCL America. et al.
Judgment in a Civil Case; pg 2 of2
in Part Defendant NCL America, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment as to All Claims by the EEOC and by Intervenors; Order Denying EEOC's Counter Motion for Summary Judgment; Order Denying Both of Defendant NCL America, Inc.'s Motions for Rule 11 Sanctions", filed on February 20, 2008; 4)"0rder Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendant NCL America, Inc." filed on February 26, 2008; 5) "Order on Consent Decree", filed June 4, 2008 ; 6) "Order Closing Cases and Dismissing Defendant NCL America, Inc. Without Prejudice Pursuant to FRCP 4l(b)(2)", filed on June 4, 2008; 7) "Joint Stipulation to Dismiss NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., Order", filed on June 4, 2008. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the Decree as set forth in the Consent Decree.

June 4, 2008 Date

Clerk

SUE BEITIA
(

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 1 of 45
CLOSED,CONS
U.S. District Court District of Hawaii (Hawaii) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. NCL America, Inc. et al Assigned to: JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY Referred to: Judge BARRY M. KURREN Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/22/2006 Date Terminated: 06/04/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Angela Morrison U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 333 Las Vegas Blvd Ste 812 Las Vegas, NV 89101 702−388−5072 Fax: 702−388−5094 Email: angela.morrison@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna Y. Park US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Los Angeles Los Angeles District Office Roybal Federal Building 255 East Temple Street 4th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−1080 Fax: 213−894−1301 Email: lado.legal@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Connie Liem US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Diego San Diego Local Office 555 West Beech St Ste 504 San Diego, CA 92101 619−557−7282 Fax: 619−557−7274 Email: connie.liem@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter F. Laura US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Los Angeles Los Angeles District Office Roybal Federal Building 255 East Temple Street 4th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 894−1076 Email: peter.laura@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Los Angeles

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 2 of 45
Los Angeles District Office Roybal Federal Building 255 East Temple Street 4th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90012 Email: vviramontes@maldef.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wilfredo O. Tungol Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Honolulu Local Office 300 Ala Moana Blvd Rm 7−127 Honolulu, HI 96813 541−3121 Email: wilfredo.tungol@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 05/11/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Consol Plaintiff
Ashmed Almlhany in CV 07−00372

represented by Daphne E. Barbee 1188 Bishop Ste 1909 Honolulu, HI 96813 533−0275 Email: daphnebarbee@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas M. Geisness The Geisness Law Firm Colman Building Suite 675 811 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 206−728−8866 Fax: 206−728−1173 Email: tom@geisnesslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Ashmed Almlhany TERMINATED: 11/22/2006
Intervenor Plaintiff Ahmed Almraisi

represented by Daphne E. Barbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas M. Geisness (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daphne E. Barbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 3 of 45

Thomas M. Geisness (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Nagi A. Alziam

represented by Daphne E. Barbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Geisness (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Samed Kassam

represented by Daphne E. Barbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Geisness (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Muthana A. Shaibi

represented by Daphne E. Barbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Geisness (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Nork Yafaie

represented by Daphne E. Barbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Geisness (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Abdullah Yahia

represented by Daphne E. Barbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Geisness (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 4 of 45

Ahmed Al−Mlhany

represented by Daphne E. Barbee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M. Geisness (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant NCL America, Inc.

represented by Barry W. Marr Marr Jones & Wang 1003 Bishop Street 1500 Honolulu, HI 96813 536−4900 Fax: 536−6700 Email: bmarr@marrjones.com TERMINATED: 10/20/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher S. Yeh Marr Jones & Wang 1003 Bishop Street 1500 Honolulu, HI 96813 536−4900 Fax: 536−6700 Email: cyeh@marrjones.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel G. Mueller National Labor Relations Board 1099 14th St., NW, Suite 9747 Washington, DC 20570−0001 202−273−1042 Email: daniel.mueller@nlrb.gov TERMINATED: 01/02/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Darin Robinson Leong Marr Jones & Wang 1003 Bishop Street 1500 Honolulu, HI 96813 536−4900 Fax: 536−6700 Email: dleong@marrjones.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard M. Rand Marr Jones & Wang 1003 Bishop Street 1500 Honolulu, HI 96813 536−4900 Fax: 536−6700 Email: rrand@marrjones.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 5 of 45

Steven M. Nakashima Marr Jones & Wang 1003 Bishop Street 1500 Honolulu, HI 96813 536−4900 Fax: 536−6700 Email: snakashima@marrjones.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. TERMINATED: 02/20/2008

represented by Barry W. Marr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher S. Yeh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel G. Mueller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/02/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darin Robinson Leong (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard M. Rand (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M. Nakashima (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Norwegian Corporation Ltd. TERMINATED: 02/15/2008

represented by Barry W. Marr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher S. Yeh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel G. Mueller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/02/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darin Robinson Leong (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 6 of 45

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard M. Rand (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M. Nakashima (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. also known as Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd.

represented by Christopher S. Yeh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard M. Rand (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/22/2006 08/22/2006 09/06/2006
09/27/2006
09/29/2006 09/29/2006 09/29/2006 10/05/2006 10/06/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants; Jury Demand − filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Summons in a Civil Action # 2 Civil Cover Sheet) − summons issued.(afc) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
2 Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for 09:00AM on 11/20/2006 before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN − by Judge HELEN GILLMOR.(afc) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. NCL America, Inc. waiver sent on 8/22/2006, answer due 10/23/2006; Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. waiver sent on 8/22/2006, answer due 10/23/2006; Norwegian Corporation Ltd. waiver sent on 8/22/2006, answer due 10/23/2006. (Tungol, Wilfredo) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
4 Submission of COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS; summons. NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF RECORD: The filing party has been notified that this filing will be construed as "CORRESPONDENCE." Pursuant to Chambers of U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren, the filing party must first seek leave of court for permission to intervene in this action. (afc) (Entered: 09/30/2006)
5 Application/MOTION for Pro Hac Vice; declaration − filed by attorney Thomas M. Geisness (local counsel: Daphne Barbee Wooten) (note: filing party (on behalf of the proposed plaintiff−intervenors) has been advised that leave of court to intervene is required) (afc) (Entered: 09/30/2006)
6 PRO HAC VICE Filing fee: $ 225.00, receipt number 236785 − Thomas Geisness, Esq. (afc) (Entered: 09/30/2006)
7 ORDER granting 5 Application for Thomas M. Geisness to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 9/29/06. [Please be advised that Mr. Geisness will not be added to the case at this time as leave of court was not granted for parties to intervene as plaintiffs] (afc) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
8 MOTION to Intervene by Ashmed Almlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Samed Kassam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Abdullah Yahia. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Certificate of Service)(gab, ) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
9 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion− 8 −MOTION to Intervene set for 11/9/2006 01:30 PM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. (lls, ) (Entered: 10/06/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 7 of 45

10/13/2006 10/20/2006 10/20/2006 10/20/2006 10/20/2006
10/23/2006
10/25/2006 11/01/2006 11/02/2006 11/09/2006 11/09/2006
11/13/2006 11/17/2006 11/21/2006

10 STATEMENT of No Opposition to Motion to Intervene filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Tungol, Wilfredo) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher S. Yeh on behalf of NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. on behalf of NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven M. Nakashima on behalf of NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. on behalf of NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Nakashima, Steven) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel G. Mueller on behalf of NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. on behalf of NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Mueller, Daniel) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
14 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 8 MOTION to Intervene filed October 5, 2006 filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Christopher S. Yeh# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Declaration Fay Rawles−Schoch)(Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
15 Defendants NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. and Norwegian Corporation Ltd.'s ANSWER to Complaint filed August 22, 2006 by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd..(Yeh, Christopher) Modified on 10/23/2006 to further note that the Certificate of Service is also included in the pleading(afc). (Entered: 10/23/2006)
16 REPORT of Planning Meeting by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Tungol, Wilfredo) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
17 REPORT of Planning Meeting Defendants NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. and Norwegian Corporation, Ltd.'s Supplemental Report of Parties' Planning Meeting by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 11/01/2006)
18 EO: 8 Motion to Intervene set for 11/9/2006 at 1:30 PM is moved to 10:00 AM the same day before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
19 Scheduling Conference Statement by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Tungol, Wilfredo) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
20 EP: Motion Hearing held on 11/9/2006 re 8 MOTION to Intervene filed by Abdullah Yahia, Ashmed Almlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Samed Kassam. Motions terminated: 8 MOTION to Intervene filed by Abdullah Yahia, Ashmed Almlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Samed Kassam. (Court Reporter FTR−Corutroom 6) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN )(wnn, ) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
21 Scheduling Conference Statement by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Nakashima, Steven) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
23 ORDER Granting 8 MOTION to Intervene . Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 11/17/06. (ecs, )[Complaint of Plaintiff−Intervenors may be filed in this action; Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff−Intervenors' Hawaii State Law claims is Denied without prejudice ] (Entered: 11/21/2006)
22 EO: Rule 16 Scheduling Conference held 11/20/2006. Court to prepare a scheduling order. Jury Selection/Trial set for 09:00 AM on 11/6/2007 before JUDGE SAMUEL P KING. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/25/2007 09:00 AM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. Settlement Conference set for 9/5/2007 02:00 PM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. Motions due by 7/6/2007. Discovery due by 9/7/2007. (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) Modified on 11/21/2006 (rwy). (Entered: 11/21/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 8 of 45

11/22/2006 11/29/2006 11/30/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 12/11/2006 12/11/2006
01/02/2007 01/05/2007 01/05/2007
01/09/2007 01/24/2007 01/24/2007 01/25/2007

24 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Ashmed Almlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Samed Kassam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Abdullah Yahia.(Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
25 EO: New dates/deadlines given at the request of the parties. Court to prepare a scheduling order. (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. Certificate of Service Re: Defendants NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. and Norwegian Corporation, Ltd.'s Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
27 AMENDED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER − Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 11/30/06. (ecs, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 27 AMENDED RULE 16 Scheduling Order has been served to Registered Participants of CM/ECF whom received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
28 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE Executed by Defendants Acknowledgement filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany, Ashmed Almlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Samed Kassam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Abdullah Yahia. (Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY. The entry docket number 28 Acknowledgment of Service filed by Abdullah Yahia,, Ashmed Almlhany,, Ahmed Almraisi,, Nagi A. Alziam,, Muthana A. Shaibi,, Nork Yafaie,, Samed Kassam,, Ahmed Al−Mlhany, filed in this case does not include "Counsel Identification". Please refer to Local Rule 10.2 which dictates the Form of Papers when submitting pleadings. Filing party has also been advised by telephone conversation that the event selected for this entry does not set answer due dates. (ecs) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
29 NOTICE by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. Withdrawal of Daniel G. Mueller as Counsel for Defendants. (Nakashima, Steven) (Entered: 01/02/2007)
30 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs−Intervenors' Complaint Filed November 22, 2006 by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Declaration Robert Kritzman# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Declaration Christopher S. Yeh# 5 Exhibit B# 6 Exhibit C# 7 Exhibit D)(Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
31 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Complaint filed August 22, 2006 by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Declaration of Robert Kritzman# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Declaration of Christopher S. Yeh# 5 Exhibit B# 6 Exhibit C)(Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
32 NOTICE of Hearing on Motions− 30 −MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs−Intervenors' Complaint Filed November 22, 2006 and 31 −MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Complaint filed August 22, 2006 set for hearing on 3/14/2007 10:00 AM before JUDGE SAMUEL P KING. (lls, ) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. RE DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA INC.S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. RE DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA INC.S FIRST REQUEST FOR ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. RE: DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA INC.S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 9 of 45

01/25/2007 01/25/2007
01/26/2007 02/06/2007 02/07/2007
02/16/2007 02/16/2007 02/16/2007 02/23/2007
02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007

PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS 1) ABDULLAH YAHIA; 2) AHMED AL−MLHANY; 3) AHMED ALMRAISI; 4) NAGI A. ALZIAM; 5) MUTHANA A. SHAIBI; 6) NORK YAFAIE; and 7) SAMED KASSAM (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
36 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. RE: DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA INC.S FIRST REQUEST FOR ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS 1) ABDULLAH YAHIA; 2) AHMED AL−MLHANY; 3) AHMED ALMRAISI; 4) NAGI A. ALZIAM; 5) MUTHANA A. SHAIBI; 6) NORK YAFAIE; and 7) SAMED KASSAM (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
37 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Norwegian Corporation Ltd. RE: DEFENDANT NORWEGIAN CORPORATION LTD.S FIRST REQUEST FOR ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS 1) ABDULLAH YAHIA; 2) AHMED AL−MLHANY; 3) AHMED ALMRAISI; 4) NAGI A. ALZIAM; 5) MUTHANA A. SHAIBI; 6) NORK YAFAIE; and 7) SAMED KASSAM (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
38 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. Re: Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Notice of Taking Deposition Upon Oral Examination of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
39 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard M. Rand on behalf of NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
40 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. RE: DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA INC.'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DATED DECEMBER 27, 2006, OF PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS ABDULLAH YAHIA, AHMED AL−MLHANY, AHMED ALMRAISI, NAGI A. ALZIAM, MUTHANA A. SHAIBI, NORK YAFAIE, and SAMED KASSAM (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
41 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. (Re: Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff EEOC's First Set of Written Interrogatories Dated January 4, 2007) (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. (Re: Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff EEOC's First Set of Written Interrogatories Dated January 4, 2007) (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Norwegian Corporation Ltd. (Re: Defendant NCL Corporation Ltd.'s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff EEOC's First Set of Written Interrogatories Dated January 4, 2007) (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
44 RESPONSE in Opposition re 31 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Complaint filed August 22, 2006 Opposition filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Points & Authorities# 2 Supplement EEOC's Statement of Material Facts# 3 Declaration of Connie K. Liem# 4 Exhibit 1 to 3# 5 Exhibit 4 to 5# 6 Exhibit 6 to 9# 7 Exhibit 10 (part 1)# 8 Exhibit 10 (part 2)# 9 Exhibit 11 to 12# 10 Exhibit 13 (part 1)# 11 Exhibit 13 (part 2)# 12 Exhibit 14 to 21# 13 Supplement EEOC's Objections and Request to Strike)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
45 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss Intervenors' Complaint filed by Ahmed Almraisi. (Geisness, Thomas) Modified on 2/26/2007 to link to 31 (ecs, ). (Entered: 02/23/2007)
46 Additional Exhibits Declaration of Robert A. Clough filed by Ahmed Almraisi. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Clough Declaration# 2 Declaration of Timothy A. Riera)(Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Norwegian Corporation Ltd. (Re Defendant NCL Corporation Ltd.'s Responses and Objections to First Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, Dated December 27, 2007, of Plaintiff−Intervenors) (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 02/23/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 10 of 45

02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007 03/02/2007
03/06/2007 03/06/2007 03/09/2007 03/12/2007

48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. (Re Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Responses and Objections to First Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, Dated December 27, 2006, of Plaintiff−Intervenors) (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY. The entry docket number 44 Response in Opposition to Motion,, filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was filed incorrectly in this case. The filing party is advised that Exhibits (regardless of the size of the file containing the exhibit) shall be submitted as SEPARATE ECFs to the main document(Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, etc. ). Filing shall stand. Filing party requested to refer to 2.6 of the General Order (ecs, ). (Entered: 02/26/2007)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY. The entry docket number 45 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by Ahmed Almraisi was filed incorrectly in this case. The filing party is advised that during the filing of the Memorandum in Opposition,when prompted "Should the document you are filing be linked to another document to this case?" to check the box and link to the appropriate Motion". Document has been linked by the Clerk's Office.(ecs ) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
49 REPLY re 31 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Complaint filed August 22, 2006 filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christopher S. Yeh# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Declaration of Kenneth B. Hipp# 8 Certificate of Compliance)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
50 REPLY re 30 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs−Intervenors' Complaint Filed November 22, 2006 filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christopher S. Yeh# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Certificate of Compliance)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY re: entry docket numbers 49 Reply Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Complaint and 50 Reply Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff−Intervenors' Complaint filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Corporation Ltd., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. Pursuant to Section 5.2 of the "Amended General Order Adopting Electronic Case Filing Procedure," the name of the ECF User under whose login and password the document is being electronically filed must be preceded by /s/ (e.g. /s/ Richard Rand). Login and password is under Mr. Richard Rand, but the /s/ is of Christopher Yeh. PLEASE ALSO be advised that Exhibit A attached to BOTH entry docket numbers contain personal identifiers. It is the responsibility of counsel to protect personal identifiers. Counsel is advised to refer to Section 11 − 11.1 "Personal Identifiers" through 11.3 " Responsibility of Counsel". (ecs, ) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
51 REPLY re 49 Reply, Table of Contents and Table of Authorities to Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Complaint filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
52 REPLY re 50 Reply, Table of Contents and Table of Authorities to Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff−Intervenors' Complaint filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
53 MOTION for Protective Order to Preclude Deposition by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Points and Authorities# 2 Declaration Connie K. Liem# 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit 5# 8 Exhibit 6# 9 Exhibit 7# 10 Exhibit 8# 11 Exhibit 9# 12 Exhibit 10# 13 Exhibit 11# 14 Exhibit 12# 15 Exhibit 13# 16 Exhibit 14# 17 Exhibit 15# 18 Exhibit 16)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. RE: NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION [Samed Kassam, Nagi A. Alziam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Ahmed Almraisi, Abdullah Yahya, and Ahmed

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 11 of 45

03/13/2007 03/13/2007 03/14/2007
03/14/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/22/2007 03/27/2007
04/04/2007 04/04/2007

Almlhany] (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
55 EO: 31 −MOTION to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Complaint filed August 22, 2006 and 30 −MOTION to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs−Intervenors'Complaint Filed November 22, 2006 set for 3/14/2007 continued to 4/20/2007 10:00 AM before JUDGE SAMUEL P KING. (Judge SAMUEL P KING )(lls, ) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
56 Return of Service on Subpoena (ecs, ) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
57 EO: 31 −MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Complaint filed August 22, 2006 and 30 −MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs−Intervenors' Complaint Filed November 22, 2006 set for hearing on 3/14/2007 are hereby continued to 5/11/2007 10:00 AM before JUDGE SAMUEL P KING. (Judge SAMUEL P KING )(lls, ) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
58 NOTICE of Hearing on 53 Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Protective Order Under Rule 26(c) is set for 3/22/2007 at 11:00 AM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. (rwy) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. [Re Defendant NCL America Inc's First Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Upon Oral Examination of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
60 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. [Re NCL America Inc.'s First Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Upon Oral Examination of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY. The Court is advised by the filing party that entry docket number 59
Certificate of Service, filed by NCL America, Inc., is the incorrect PDF image. The filing party has re−submitted a corrected filing. Refer to docket number 60 Certificate of Service filed by NCL
America, Inc. . (eps ) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
61 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 53 MOTION for Protective Order to Preclude Deposition filed by NCL America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
62 EP: 53 Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Protective Order Under Rule 26) − DENIED. Mr. Rand to prepare the order. Deadline for parties to submit letter briefs on documents that are claimed privileged: Mr. Rand by 3/30/2007, Ms. Liem by 4/6/2007. Motion terminated: 53 MOTION for Protective Order. (FTR−Ctrm C6F, 10:52 − 11:23) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
63 Ex Parte MOTION Emergency application for renewed protective order, suspend deposition, clariification of oral ruling, written order/ruling re 58 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 62 Motion Hearing, Terminate Motions,, 61 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 59 Certificate of Service, 60 Certificate of Service, 53 MOTION for Protective Order to Preclude Deposition by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Connie Liem# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
64 MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiff EEOC and/or Its Counsel by NCL America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Motion# 2 Declaration of Richard M. Rand# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit K# 13 Exhibit L# 14 Exhibit M# 15 Exhibit N# 16 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
65 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 63 Ex Parte MOTION Emergency application for renewed protective order, suspend deposition, clariification of oral ruling, written order/ruling re 58 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 62 Motion Hearing, Terminate Motions,, 61 Memorandum in Opposition to MEx Parte MOTION Emergency application for renewed protective order, suspend deposition, clariification of oral ruling, written order/ruling re 58 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 62 Motion Hearing, Terminate Motions,, 61 Memorandum in Opposition to MEx Parte MOTION

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 12 of 45

04/04/2007 04/09/2007 04/09/2007 04/09/2007 04/13/2007 04/16/2007 04/17/2007
04/17/2007 04/17/2007
04/19/2007

Emergency application for renewed protective order, suspend deposition, clariification of oral ruling, written order/ruling re 58 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 62 Motion Hearing, Terminate Motions,, 61 Memorandum in Opposition to M filed by NCL America, Inc.. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
68 Declaration of Richard M. Rand in Support of Defendant NCL America Inc's 64 MOTION for Rule 37 Sanctions Against Plaintiff EEOC and/or Its Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C (Envelope containing CD − Audio Recording of 3/22/07 hearing) # 2 Certificate of Service) DOCUMENT WILL BE PLACED IN CASE FILE (ecs, )(cc: BMK) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
66 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
67 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
ADVISORY ENTRY. The entry docket number 66 Certificate of Service filed by NCL America, Inc. was filed incorrectly (Discovery) in this case and will be stricken from case. The filing party has re−submitted a corrected filing − PLEASE REFER TO 67 .(ecs, ) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
69 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. Re: Second Amended Notice of Taking Depositions Upon Oral Examination [Plaintiff−Intervenors] (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
70 NOTICE of Hearing on 63 Plaintiff EEOC's Emergency Ex Parte Application for Renewed Protective Order, Clarification on Court's Oral Ruling, a Written Ruling on the Merits Regarding Protective Order, and to Suspend Such Deposition; and 64 Defendant NCL America, Inc.'s Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions Against Plaintiff EEOC and/or Its Counsel are set for 4/30/2007 at 02:00 PM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. (rwy) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
71 REPLY to Response to Motion re 53 MOTION for Protective Order to Preclude Deposition, 63 Ex Parte MOTION Emergency application for renewed protective order, suspend deposition, clariification of oral ruling, written order/ruling re 58 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 62 Motion Hearing, Terminate Motions,, 61 Memorandum in Opposition to MEx Parte MOTION Emergency application for renewed protective order, suspend deposition, clariification of oral ruling, written order/ruling re 58 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 62 Motion Hearing, Terminate Motions,, 61 Memorandum in Opposition to MEx Parte MOTION Emergency application for renewed protective order, suspend deposition, clariification of oral ruling, written order/ruling re 58 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 62 Motion Hearing, Terminate Motions,, 61 Memorandum in Opposition to M, 64 MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiff EEOC and/or Its Counsel filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Connie Liem# 2 Declaration Pat Blair# 3 Exhibit 7# 4 Exhibit 8# 5 Exhibit 9# 6 Exhibit 10# 7 Exhibit 11# 8 Exhibit 12# 9 Exhibit 13# 10 Exhibit 14# 11 Exhibit 15# 12 Exhibit 16# 13 Exhibit 17# 14 Exhibit 18)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
72 NOTICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 71 Reply to Response to Motion,,,,, Notice of Errata U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Certificate of Service))(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
73 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TORESPONSE in Opposition re 64 MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiff EEOC and/or Its Counsel filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Connie Liem# 2 Declaration Pat Blair# 3 Exhibit 7# 4 Exhibit 8# 5 Errata 9# 6 Exhibit 10# 7 Exhibit 11# 8 Errata 12# 9 Exhibit 13# 10 Exhibit 14# 11 Exhibit 15# 12 Exhibit 16# 13 Exhibit 17)(Liem, Connie) Modified on 4/18/2007 (ecs, ). (Entered: 04/17/2007)
74 ORDER Denying Plaintiff EEOC's 53 MOTION for Protective Order under Rule 26(C) dated March 9 [Docket 53]. Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 4/19/07. (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/19/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 13 of 45

04/19/2007 04/19/2007 04/25/2007 04/26/2007
04/30/2007
05/02/2007 05/03/2007 05/03/2007 05/04/2007 05/04/2007 05/07/2007

COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 74 Order Denying Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Protective Order under Rule 26 (c) dated Match 9, 2007 [Docket 53] has been served to Registered Participants of CM/ECF who received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
75 REPLY to Response to Motion re 64 MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiff EEOC and/or Its Counsel filed by NCL America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix # 2 Declaration of Richard Rand# 3 Exhibit O# 4 Exhibit P# 5 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
76 NOTICE of Appearance for Government Attorneys Peter Laura, Vistor Viramontes, and Angela Morrison − by Connie Liem on behalf of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Liem, Connie) Modified on 8/15/2007 to add caption text (ecs, ). (Entered: 04/25/2007)
ADVISORY ENTRY. The entry docket number 76 Notice of Appearance filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was filed incorrectly in this case. A "Notice of Appearance for Government Attorneys Peter Laura, Victor Viramontes, and Angela Morrison" was filed by Angela Connie Liem. Attorneys who are registered ECF Users, using their login and password may EACH file a Notice of Appearance, which would allow them to associate themselves to case. No action is needed, the Office of the Clerk has associated attorneys to case. (ecs, ). Modified on 4/26/2007 (ecs, ). (Entered: 04/26/2007)
77 EP: 63 Plaintiff EEOC's Emergency Ex Parte Application for Renewed Protective Order, Clarification on Court's Oral Ruling, a Written Ruling on the Merits Regarding Protective Order, and to Suspend Such Deposition − granted in part. Deft may obtain facts that pltf relied on in drafting the charges, deft may depose 30(b)(6) witness, deft not allowed to ask questions about the Nasser file. Court to prepare the protective order. 64 Defendant NCL America, Inc.'s Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions Against Plaintiff EEOC and/or Its Counsel − denied w/o prejudice. Re the two intervening plaintiffs − deft to be notified immediately upon their return. Their depos are to take place within three weeks of their return. (FTR−Ctrm C6F, 2:03 − 2:31) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
78 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
79 ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EEOC'S APPLICATION FOR RENEWED PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE NCL'S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS 63 , 64 . Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 5/2/07. (ecs, ) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 79 ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EEOC'S APPLICATION FOR RENEWED PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE NCL'S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS has been served to Registered Participants of CM/ECF who received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
80 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. Re: First Supplemental Responses to EEOC's Interrogs to Def NCL America Inc. dated January 4, 2007 (Rand, Richard) Modified on 5/7/2007: Refiled − Please see entry 81 (ecs, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 5/7/2007 (ecs, ). (Entered: 05/04/2007)
81 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. re NCL's First Supplemental Responses and Objections to EEOC's First Set of Interrogatories (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
82 EO: 31 −MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Complaint filed August 22, 2006 and 30 −MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs−Intervenors' Complaint Filed November 22, 2006 set for hearing on 5/11/2007 are hereby continued to 8/15/2007 10:00 AM before JUDGE SAMUEL P KING. Please note that Judge S. King is unavailable on 5/11/2007 and will not be in the District from 6/8/2007 through July 25, 2007. (Judge SAMUEL P KING )(lls, ) (Entered: 05/07/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 14 of 45

05/07/2007 05/09/2007
05/11/2007 05/18/2007
05/24/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 06/04/2007
06/04/2007

84 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings 77 Motion Hearing, Terminate Motions,,,,,, held on 4/30/2007 before Judge Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren. Court Reporter: Jessica B. Cahill. (gab, ) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
83 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 79 Order (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Angela Morrison# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4)(Morrison, Angela) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
85 NOTICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Notice of Withdrawal for Government Attorney Wilfredo Tungol U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Tungol, Wilfredo) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
88 RESPONSE re 83 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 79 Order filed by NCL America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
89 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
90 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. [Re: Second Request for Answers to Interrogatories to Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
91 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. [Re: Second Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
92 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. [Re: Second Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff−Intervenor Abdullah Yahia] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
93 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. [Re: Second Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff−Intervenor Nork Yafaie] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
94 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. [Re: Second Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff−Intervenor Samed Kassam] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
95 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. [Re: Second Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff−Intervenor Nagi A. Alziam] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
96 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. [Re: Second Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff−Intervenor Ahmed Almraisi] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
97 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. [Re: Second Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff−Internvenor Ahmed Al−Mlhany] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
98 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. [Re: Second Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff−Intervenor Muthana A. Shaibi] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
99 ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER OF MAY 3, 2007 83 . [ ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART EEOC'S APPLICATION FOR RENEWED PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE NCL'S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS is
AFFIRMED] . Signed by Judge SAMUEL P KING on 6/4/07. (ecs, ) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 99 ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER OF MAY 3, 2007 has been served. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 06/04/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 15 of 45

06/22/2007
06/25/2007
07/02/2007 07/02/2007 07/02/2007 07/02/2007 07/02/2007 07/02/2007 07/03/2007 07/03/2007 07/03/2007 07/03/2007 07/03/2007 07/03/2007 07/06/2007

100 NOTICE by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR DARIN R. LEONG AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS NCL AMERICA INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., AND NCL CORPORATION LTD. NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
101 NOTICE by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR DARIN R. LEONG AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS NCL AMERICA, INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., AND NORWEGIAN CORPORATION LTD.; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Leong, Darin) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
102 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Subpoena Duces Tecum [Nagi A. Alziam] served on Custodian of Records − Seafarers' International Union of North America / SEATU on June 26, 2007, filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
103 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Subpoena Duces Tecum [Ahmed M. Almraisi] served on Custodian of Records − Seafarers' International Union of North America / SEATU on June 26, 2007, filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
104 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Subpoena Duces Tecum [Abdullah M. Yahia] served on Custodian of Records − Seafarers' International Union of North America / SEATU on June 26, 2007, filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
105 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Subpoena Duces Tecum [Nagi A. Alziam] served on Custodian of Records − Fremont Maritime Services on June 26, 2007, filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
106 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Subpoena Duces Tecum [Ahmed M. Almraisi] served on Custodian of Records − Fremont Maritime Services on June 26, 2007, filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
107 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Subpoena Duces Tecum [Abdullah M. Yahia] served on Custodian of Records − Fremont Maritime Services on June 26, 2007, filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
108 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. [re Yahia] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
109 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. [re Al−Mlhany] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
110 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. [re Almraisi] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
111 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. [re Alziam] (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
112 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Second Request for Answers to Interrogatories to Plaintiff−Intervenor Muthana A. Shaibi (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
113 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Second Request for Answers to Interrogatories to Plaintiff−Intervenor Nork Yafaie (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
114 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Norwegian Corporation Ltd. (Re: Defendant NCL Corporation Ltd.'s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff EEOC's First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendants NCL America, Inc., NCL Corporation, and Norwegian

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 16 of 45

07/06/2007 07/06/2007 07/18/2007 07/25/2007 07/30/2007
08/01/2007 08/02/2007
08/03/2007 08/08/2007
08/08/2007
08/13/2007 08/13/2007

Cruise Line dated June 6, 2007) (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
115 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. (Re: Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff EEOC's First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendants NCL America, Inc., NCL Corporation, and Norwegian Cruise Line dated June 6, 2007) (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
116 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. (Re: Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff EEOC's First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendants NCL America, Inc., NCL Corporation, and Norwegian Cruise Line dated June 6, 2007) (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
117 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE. **Dispositive Motions cut−off date continued to 9/11/2007. Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 7/18/07. (ecs, ) Order prepared by counsel − Modified on 7/18/2007 (ecs, ). (Entered: 07/18/2007)
118 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. Re: Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Second Amended Notice of Taking Depositions Upon Oral Examination [Nagi A. Alziam and Samed Kassam] (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
119 MOTION to Compel Production Against NCL, America by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Points and Authorities# 2 Declaration Liem# 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit 5# 8 Exhibit 6# 9 Exhibit 7# 10 Exhibit 8# 11 Exhibit 9# 12 Exhibit 10# 13 Exhibit 11# 14 Exhibit 12# 15 Errata 13# 16 Exhibit 14# 17 Exhibit 15# 18 Exhibit 16# 19 Exhibit 17# 20 Exhibit 18# 21 Exhibit 19)(Liem, Connie) Modified on 7/31/2007 − categorizing exh 5 & 7 (bbb, ). (Entered: 07/30/2007)
120 NOTICE of Hearing on 119 Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and for Discovery Sanctions Against Defendant NCL, America, Inc. Under FRCP 37 is set for 9/14/2007 at 02:00 PM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. (rwy) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
121 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents And For Discovery Sanctions Against NCL, Corporation under FRCP 37 by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Points and Authorities# 2 Declaration Liem# 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 11# 9 Exhibit 20# 10 Exhibit 21# 11 Exhibit 22)(Liem, Connie) Modified on 8/3/2007 to clarify docket text to correlate to title of document (eps ). (Entered: 08/02/2007)
122 NOTICE of Hearing on 121 Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and for Discovery Sanctions Against Defendant NCL, America, Inc. Under FRCP 37 is set for 9/14/2007 at 02:00 PM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. (rwy) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
123 ORDER RULING IN PART ON DEFENDANTS' Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenor's Complaints, set for Hearing on August 15, 2007 30 31 . Signed by Judge SAMUEL P KING on 8/8/07. [The Court (1) DENIES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Defendants Motions [CR 30, 31] in part (as to the first issue) and (2) will consider and
resolve the second issue after hearing oral argument on August 15, 2007.](ecs, ) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 123 ORDER RULING IN PART ON DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO PARTIALLY DISMISS PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS COMPLAINTS, SET FOR HEARING ON AUGUST 15, 2007 has been served. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
124 MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Ahmed Al−Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Samed Kassam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Abdullah Yahia. (Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
125 Declaration re 124 MOTION to Consolidate Cases of Thomas M. Geisness. (Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 08/13/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 17 of 45

08/15/2007
08/21/2007 08/23/2007 08/24/2007 08/27/2007
08/27/2007 08/28/2007 08/29/2007 08/31/2007 08/31/2007 08/31/2007 08/31/2007 09/04/2007

126 EP: Motion Hearing held on 8/15/2007 re 30 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs−Intervenors' Complaint Filed November 22, 2006 filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Corporation Ltd., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 31 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Complaint filed August 22, 2006 filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Corporation Ltd., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Motions Taken Under Advisement: (Court Reporter Gloria Bediamol.) (Judge SAMUEL P KING )(edm, ) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
127 NOTICE of Hearing on 124 MOTION to Consolidate is set for 9/14/2007 at 02:00 PM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. (rwy) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
128 NOTICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 124 MOTION to Consolidate Cases Non−opposition by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Liem, Connie) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
129 First MOTION to Continue Pre−Trial and Trial Dates by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Liem# 2 Exhibit A)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
130 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 119 MOTION to Compel Production Against NCL, America Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Memorandum In Opposition to Plaintiff EEOC's Motion To Compel Production of Documents and For Discovery Sanctions Against Defendant NCL, America, Inc. Under FRCP 37; Defendant NCL America Inc.'s MOTION FOR SANCTIONS filed by NCL America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christopher S. Yeh# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Certificate of Compliance# 6 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) Modified on 8/28/2007 to clarify document title and change event to "Motion for Sanctions" (ecs, ). (Entered: 08/27/2007)
131 Defendant NCL Corporation Ltd.'s MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 121 MOTION to Compel Against NCL, Corporation filed by Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christopher S. Yeh# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) Modified on 8/28/2007− added Defendant party text (ecs, ). (Entered: 08/27/2007)
133 NOTICE of Hearing on 129 Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Continue Pre−Trial and Trial Dates is set for 9/14/2007 at 02:00 PM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. (rwy) (Entered: 08/28/2007)
135 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. RE DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA INC.'S THIRD AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION (Samed Kassam) (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
136 EO: Settlement Conference is continued from 9/5/2007 to 10/24/2007 at 09:00 AM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. Confidential Settlement Conference Statements due 10/17/2007. (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) Modified on 8/31/2007 (rwy). (Entered: 08/31/2007)
137 RESPONSE in Opposition re 130 MOTION for Sanctions filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Liem# 2 Exhibit A)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
138 ORDER DENYING Defendant's 30 Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs−Intervenors' Complaint. Signed by Judge SAMUEL P KING on 8/31/07. − This order concerns the remaining issues, as set forth in the Courts order of August 8, 2007. (ecs, ) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 138 Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff−Intervenors' Complaint has been served. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
139 REPLY re 121 MOTION to Compel Against NCL, Corporation filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration Liem in Support of Reply# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 09/04/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 18 of 45

09/04/2007 09/06/2007 09/06/2007
09/06/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/10/2007 09/14/2007
09/14/2007 09/17/2007
09/17/2007

140 REPLY re 119 MOTION to Compel Production Against NCL, America filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Liem Declaration in Support of Reply)(Morrison, Angela) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
141 NOTICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Joint Notice on Stipulation U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Liem, Connie) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
142 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 129 First MOTION to Continue Pre−Trial and Trial Dates filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit K# 13 Exhibit L# 14 Exhibit M# 15 Exhibit N# 16 Exhibit O# 17 Exhibit P# 18 Exhibit Q# 19 Exhibit R# 20 Exhibit S# 21 Exhibit T# 22 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
143 REPLY re 130 MOTION for Sanctions filed by NCL America, Inc.. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
144 Return of Service on Subpoena Verizon Wireless was served on 9/6/2007 (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
145 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc. Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Third Request For Production of Documents To Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
146 NOTICE of Hearing on 131 Defendant NCL America, Inc.'s Motion for Sanctions is set for 9/14/2007 at 02:00 PM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. (rwy) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
147 EP:Motions' Hearing held on 9/14/2007−Re− 130 −MOTION for Sanctions filed by NCL America, Inc.−is hereby Moot. 124 −MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Ahmed Almraisi, Ahmed Al−Mlhany, Nork Yafaie, Abdullah Yahia, Muthana A. Shaibi, Samed Kassam and Nagi A. Alziam−Motion is hereby Granted. Court to prepare the Order. 129 −MOTION to Continue Pre−Trial and Trial Dates filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−This Motion is hereby Granted. 119 −MOTION to Compel Production Against NCL, America filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−This Motion is hereby Denied. 121 −MOTION to Compel Against NCL, Corporation filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−This Motion is hereby Denied. Mr. Rand to prepare the Order. Motions' terminated. An Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order is to be issued− Discovery deadline 11/15/2007. File Dispositive Motions by 11/26/2007. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/15/2008 09:00 AM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. Jury Selection/Trial set for 09:00 AM on 2/26/2008 before JUDGE SAMUEL P KING. Settlement Conference set for 10/24/2007 09:00 AM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. (Court Reporter FTR−C−6.) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN )(lls, ) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
148 EP:Motion Hearing held on 9/14/2007−Re− 9 −MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Ashmed Almlhany−This Motion is hereby Granted. Court to prepare the Order. Motion terminated. (Court Reporter FTR−C6.) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN )(lls, ) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
149 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE (9 in 1:07−cv−00372−ACK−LEK) (124 in 1:06−cv−00451−SPK−BMK). Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 9/17/07. − The Motion is hereby GRANTED because both lawsuits
involve issues that are substantially related and consolidation will serve the interests of justice and
further judicial economy. It is also ordered that all further pleadings shall be filed and docketed in Civil No. 06−00451 SPK−BMK. All further filings relevant to Civil No. 07−00372 shall be filed only in Civil No. 06−00451.
Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SPK−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−ACK−LEK(ecs, ) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of (149 in 1:06−cv−00451−SPK−BMK, 14 in 1:07−cv−00372−ACK−LEK) ORDER

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 19 of 45

09/19/2007 09/19/2007 09/19/2007 09/19/2007 09/20/2007
09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/21/2007 09/27/2007 10/02/2007
10/03/2007

GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE has been served. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SPK−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−ACK−LEK(ecs, ) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
150 Return of Service on Subpoena CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS−−MAERSK LINE, LTD. was served on 08/22/2007 (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
151 Return of Service on Subpoena CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS−−TRANSOCEANIC CABLESHIP COMPANY, INC./TYCOM was served on 08/16/2007 (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
152 Return of Service on Subpoena CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS−−STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK MARITIME COLLEGE AT FORT SCHUYLER (CONCERNING NORK YAFEI) was served on 08/27/2007 (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
153 Return of Service on Subpoena CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS−−STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK MARITIME COLLEGE AT FORT SCHUYLER (CONCERNING MUTHANA AHMED SHAIBI) was served on 08/27/2007 (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
154 ORDER ASSIGNING CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS (149 in 1:06−cv−00451−SPK−BMK, 14 in 1:07−cv−00372−SPK−BMK). Signed by Judge HELEN GILLMOR on 9/20/07. − IT IS ORDERED that the above numbered and entitled consolidated actions are hereby assigned to Judge Samuel P. King and referred to Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren. Please reflect CV 07−00372 SPK−BMK on all future pleadings. Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SPK−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SPK−BMK(ecs, ) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
155 AMENDED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 9/20/07. (ecs, ) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 155 Scheduling Order has been served. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 154 Order Assigning Consolidated Actions has been served. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
156 SUBMISSION of Proposed Order to Judge BARRY M. KURREN EEOC's Objections to Defendants' Proposed Orderon EEOC's Motion to Compel 119 121 and Request for Ruling on the Merits F On EEOC's Motion to Compel Against NCL, Corp 121 . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Liem# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
157 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. RE: DEFENDANTS NCL AMERICA INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., AND NCL CORPORATION LTD.'S FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1) (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
158 MOTION to Compel and for Reasonable Expenses by NCL America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in support of motion# 2 Declaration of Richard M. Rand# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit E# 8 Exhibit F# 9 Exhibit G# 10 Exhibit H# 11 Exhibit I# 12 Exhibit J# 13 Exhibit K# 14 Exhibit L# 15 Declaration of Darin R. Leong# 16 Certificate of Compliance# 17 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
159 ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF EEOCS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST NCL AMERICA INC. UNDER FRCP 37 [DOCKET 119] AND PLAINTIFF EEOCS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST NCL CORPORATION LTD. UNDER FRCP 37 [DOCKET 121]; AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 20 of 45

10/03/2007 10/03/2007 10/24/2007 10/25/2007
10/25/2007 10/29/2007 10/29/2007
10/30/2007 10/30/2007
11/01/2007 11/02/2007 11/07/2007 11/08/2007

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [DOCKET 130]. re 130 , 119 , 121 − The Court having reviewed the Motions
to Compel, the Memoranda In Opposition, and Reply Memoranda finds that Plaintiff did not comply with Local Rule 7.5 in filing its Motion to Compel Against NCL America Inc. [Docket No. 119].As a sanction, the Court DENIES both Motions to Compel without prejudice. Defendants request for further
sanctions is DENIED . Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 10/3/07. (ecs, ) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 159 Order has been served. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
160 NOTICE of Hearing on 158 Defendant NCL America, Inc.'s Motion to Compel and for Reasonable Expenses is set for 11/15/2007 at 09:30 AM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. (rwy) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
161 EP: Settlement Conference held. No settlement at this time. Further conference on call. (FTR−Ctrm Chambers, 9 − 1:15) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
162 DEFENDANTS NCL AMERICA INC., NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., AND NCL CORPORATION LTD.S ANSWER to 24 Complaint OF PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 November 22, 2006 by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd..(Rand, Richard) Modified on 10/26/2007 −link created and document title corrected per Errata 163 (ecs, ). (Entered: 10/25/2007)
163 Errata re 162 Answer to Complaint, Filed October 25, 2007. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
164 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 158 MOTION to Compel and for Reasonable Expenses filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert A. Clough refiled as 165 # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Robert A. Clough)(Geisness, Thomas) Modified on 10/31/2007 (ecs, ). (Entered: 10/29/2007)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY re Declaration of Robert A. Clough in entry docket number 164 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. Although Mr. Clough,together with Thomas Geisness represent the Plaintiff−Intervenors in case, he is not associated to the case. Pursuant to the "Amended General Order Adopting Electronic Case Filing Procedures" section 5: "5.3 Third Party Signatures. An electronically filed document requiring the signature of an individual other than the ECF User, such as a Stipulation or declaration, must contain a scanned image of that individuals signature. The filing party shall re−submit a corrected filing. (ecs, ) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
165 Declaration re 164 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel and for Reasonable Expenses. (Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
166 Plaintiff EEOC's NOTICE of Opposition to by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 158 MOTION to Compel and for Reasonable Expenses , 164 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Liem, Connie) Modified to clarify document title on 10/31/2007 (ecs, ). (Entered: 10/30/2007)
167 Return of Service on Subpoena Alejandro Mercado was served on October 19, 2007 (Attachments: # 1 Subpoena to Appear at Deposition Mid. Dist. of FL.# 2 Subpoena to Appear S.Dist. of FL.)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 11/01/2007)
168 REPLY re 158 MOTION to Compel and for Reasonable Expenses Filed October 2, 2007 filed by NCL America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
174 Correspondence re: Letter brief in support of Motions to compel from EEOC dated 11/7/07 addressed to Magistrate Judge Kurren. (ecs, ) Modified viewing restriction on 11/20/2007 (emt, ). (Entered: 11/19/2007)
169 NOTICE − This case is reassigned to Judge Susan Oki Mollway. Please use the
following case number on all future filings: Civil No. 06−00451

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 21 of 45

11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/15/2007
11/19/2007 11/20/2007 11/20/2007 11/21/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007

SOM−BMK and Civil No. 07−00372 SOM−BMK. . Associated
Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(gab, ) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of (16 in 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK) Notice has been served to the Registered Participants of CM/ECF electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(gab, ) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
170 NOTICE re (16 in 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK) Case was reassiged pursuant to the direction of Chief Judge Helen Gillmor.. Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(gab, ) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
171 EO: Pursuant to the order of reassignment, Judge Mollway reschedules the hearing previously set by Judge King for January 16, 2008, 9:00 a.m. New hearing date for dispositive motions is 1/22/08 @ 9:00 a.m. SOM. re 170 Notice (Other). (Judge SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY )(tbf, ) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of EO 171 Link, has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
172 EP: 158 Defendant NCL America, Inc.'s Motion to Compel and for Reasonable Expenses − GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs are required to ask the cell phone carriers for records. Phone records to be produced by 11/29/2007. Request for fees and costs DENIED without prejudice. Christopher S. Yeh to prepare the order. Status Conference: Defendants to submit financial summary under protective order. Christopher S. Yeh to prepare the protective order. Plaintiff's request for documents showing corporate relationships are vague and overly broad. No further discovery at this time. Mr. Eric Tedtaotao's personnel file to be produced under protective order. Christopher S. Yeh to prepare the protective order. Motion terminated: 158 MOTION to Compel. (FTR−Ctrm C6F, 9:35 − 10:05) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
173 Correspondence re: Letter brief re discovery issues − by Defendants (counsel Christopher Yeh) dated 11/7/07 addressed to Magistrate Judge Kurren. Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(ecs, ) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
175 ORDER REGARDING TRIAL DATE − Signed by Judge SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 11/20/07. (emt, ) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 175 "ORDER REGARDING TRIAL DATE" has been served on November 20, 2007. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (emt, ) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
176 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE − Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 11/21/07. [The dispositive motions cut−off date is continued to 11/27/2007.] (emt, ) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
177 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS AND/OR THEIR COUNSEL by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Motion# 2 Declaration of Christopher S. Yeh# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Certificate of Service)(Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
178 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND/OR ITS COUNSEL by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Declaration of Christopher S. Yeh# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit E# 8 Exhibit F# 9 Certificate of Service)(Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 11/27/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 22 of 45

11/27/2007 11/27/2007
11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007

179 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND/OR ITS COUNSEL AND PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS AND/OR THEIR COUNSEL by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Declaration of Christopher S. Yeh# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Certificate of Service)(Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
180 Plaintiff EEOC's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendants NCL America, Inc., and NCL Corporation, Ltd., and Norwegian Cruise Line Limited MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Defendants, NCL America Inc., NCL Corporation LTD. and Norwegian Cruise Line Limited by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Points and Authorities# 2 Plaintiff EEOC's STATEMENT OF CONCISE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Against Defendants NCL, America, Inc., NCL Corporation, Ltd., and Norwegian Cruise Line Limited Supplement Concise Statement of Facts# 3 Declaration Connie K. Liem# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit 12# 8 Exhibit 13# 9 Exhibit 18# 10 Exhibit 65# 11 Exhibit 66)(Liem, Connie) Modified on 11/28/2007 to amend docket text reflect correct caption of document − caption indicates that this document is a motion for partial summary judgment, not summary judgment as noted in the previous docket text. Also note, the concise statement was included in this entry as an attachment and not as a separate document. (emt, ). (Entered: 11/27/2007)
181 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
182 CONCISE STATEMENT of Facts re 181 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Declaration of Daniel S. Farkas# 10 Exhibit H# 11 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
183 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
184 CONCISE STATEMENT of Facts re 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
185 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NCL America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
186 CONCISE STATEMENT of Facts re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NCL America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to LR7.5# 3 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
188 CONCISE STATEMENT of Facts re 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit 15# 17 Declaration of Fay Rawles−Schoch# 18 Exhibit 16# 19 Exhibit 17# 20 Exhibit 18# 21 Declaration of Matthew Lewis# 22 Exhibit 19# 23 Exhibit 20# 24 Exhibit 21# 25 Exhibit 22# 26 Exhibit 23# 27 Exhibit 24# 28 Exhibit

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 23 of 45

11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007
11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/30/2007

25# 29 Exhibit 26# 30 Exhibit 27# 31 Exhibit 28# 32 Exhibit 29# 33 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
189 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie, 181 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 180 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment :. Motion Hearing set for 1/22/2008 09:00 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (tbf, ) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 189 Notice of Hearing on Motion, has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
190 EO: 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie. Motion Hearing set for 1/22/08 @ 9:00 a.m. SOM are continued to 2/11/2008 09:45 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (Judge SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY )(tbf, ) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of EO 187 Motion for Summary Judgment, 185 Motion for Summary Judgment has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
eo: 180 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 1/22/08 @ 9:00 a.m. SOM is continued to 2/25/2008 09:00 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (Judge SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY )(tbf, ) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of EO Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R) has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
191 NOTICE of Hearing on 177 Defendants NCL America Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., and NCL Corporation Ltd.'s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against Plaintiff−Intervenors and/or Their Counsel; 178 Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and/or Its Counsel and Plaintiff−Intervenors and/or Their Counsel; and 179 Defendants NCL America Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., and NCL Corporation Ltd.'s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and/or Its Counsel and Plaintiff−Intervenors and/or Their Counsel are set for 12/19/2007 at 10:30 AM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. Memorandum in Opposition due by noon 12/10/2007. Reply to Opposition due by noon 12/14/2007. (rwy) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 191 Notice of Hearing on Motion has been served on 11/29/2007. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (rwy) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
192 MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plaintiff−Intervenor Samed Kassem, Filed November 27, 2007 [Doc #185] by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
193 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 192 MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain :. Motion

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 24 of 45

11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 12/01/2007
12/03/2007
12/03/2007 12/03/2007 12/04/2007 12/04/2007 12/05/2007
12/05/2007

Hearing set for 2/11/2008 09:45 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (tbf, ) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 193 Notice of Hearing on Motion,, has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
194 EO: The trial schedule will be discussed with trial counsel at the hearing on January 22, 2008.. (Judge SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY )(tbf, ) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of EO 194 Link has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
195 Plaintiff EEOC's OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Proposed Order Re: (1) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion to Compel and for Reasonable Expenses (Docket 158); and (2) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Motion Via Letter Brief to Compel Discovery (Docket 174) − U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission SUBMISSION of Proposed Order to Judge BARRY M. KURREN EEOC'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED ORDER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Defendant's Proposed Order)# 2 Exhibit B (EEOC's Proposed Order))(Liem, Connie) Modified on 12/3/2007 strike/add text (emt, ). (Entered: 12/01/2007)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY. The entry docket number 195 Submission of Proposed Order was filed incorrectly in this case. The wrong Event was selected. The correct Event (Objection) is found in the Responses and Replies Event Field. The filing party should consult the Users Guide, which can be found on our website and contains a complete list of Events and reliefs, or consult with local counsel on local practices and procedures. The filing party is cautioned to make entries correctly in future submissions. (gls, ) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
196 Joint MOTION to Continue HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST ALL PLAINTIFFS by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Connie Liem# 2 Exhibit A (Email dated 12.3.07)# 3 Affidavit of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
197 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 196 Joint MOTION to Continue HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST ALL PLAINTIFFS filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
198 REPLY to Response to Motion re 196 Joint MOTION to Continue HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST ALL PLAINTIFFS filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. (Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
199 Correspondence re: Transmittal letter from US EEOC re Motion for PSJ − Courtesy copies. (ecs, ) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
200 ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES (DOCKET 158); AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION'S MOTION VIA LETTER BRIEF TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (174) 158 , 174 − Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 12/5/07. (emt, ) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
201 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST ALL PLAINTIFFS 196 − Signed by Judge SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 12/5/07. [Motion
terminated: 196 Joint MOTION to Continue HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST ALL PLAINTIFFS filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission − GRANTED. 177 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS AND/OR THEIR COUNSEL continued to 2/11/2008 09:45 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY; 178 Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and/or Its Counsel and Plaintiff−Intervenors and/or Their Counsel is continued to January 22, 2008, at 9:00 a.m.; 179 Defendants' Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 25 of 45

12/05/2007 12/11/2007 12/14/2007
12/20/2007 12/20/2007 01/02/2008
01/03/2008 01/03/2008 01/03/2008

Against U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and/or Its Counsel and Plaintiff−Intervenors
and/or Their Counsel (Doc. 179) iscontinued to February 11, 2008, at 9:45 a.m. ] (emt, ) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 201 "ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST ALL PLAINTIFFS" has been served on December 5, 2007. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (emt, ) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
202 OBJECTION re 172 Motion Hearing, Terminate Motions,,,,,, 174 Correspondence EEOC'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (EEOC's Proposed Protective Order)# 2 Exhibit B (EEOC Directives Transmittal)# 3 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
203 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Points & Authorities# 2 EEOC's Proposed First Amended Complaint# 3 Declaration Connie K. Liem# 4 Exhibit 7 (11/14/04 letter)# 5 Exhibit 11 (Kritzman Decl.)# 6 Exhibit 59 (SEC Annual Report)# 7 Exhibit 65 (Kritzman Depo)# 8 Exhibit 67 (Chesney Depo)# 9 Exhibit 68 (Veitch Depo)# 10 Exhibit 77 (Hamlin Depo)# 11 Exhibit 78 (Lewis Depo)# 12 Exhibit 79 (11/21/06 letter)# 13 Exhibit 80 (12/5/06 letter)# 14 Exhibit 81 (1/25/07 letter)# 15 Exhibit 82 (letters re: depos)# 16 Exhibit 83 (12/07 letters)# 17 Exhibit 84 (business card)# 18 Exhibit 85 (Azizi Decl.)# 19 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
204 NOTICE of Hearing on 203 Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint is set for 1/24/2008 at 02:30 PM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. Final Pretrial Conference is continued from 1/15/2008 to 1/24/2008 at 02:30 PM before JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN. Pretrial Statements due 1/17/2008. (rwy) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 204 Notice of Hearing on Motion, has been served on 12/20/2007. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (rwy) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
205 MOTION for Joinder re 203 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended ComplaintFirst MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended ComplaintFirst MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended ComplaintFirst MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint Thomas M. Geisness appearing for Intervenor Plaintiffs Ahmed Al−Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Samed Kassam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Abdullah Yahia (Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
206 EO: 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 178 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND/OR ITS COUNSEL, 181 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motions set for 1/22/08 @ 9:00 a.m. SOM are continued to 1/28/2008 10:30 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (Judge JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(tbf, ) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of EO 206 Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R), Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R) has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
207 EO: 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 178 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND/OR ITS COUNSEL, 181 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motions moved to 1/28/08 @ 10:30 a.m. SOM are rescheduled back to 1/22/2008 09:00 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (Judge JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(tbf, ) (Entered:

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 26 of 45

01/03/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008
01/04/2008
01/04/2008 01/04/2008

01/03/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of EO 207 Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R), Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R) has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
208 RESPONSE in Opposition re 181 MOTION for Summary Judgment Opposition and Counter−motion filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of EEOC's Opposition and Counter−motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Response to Norwegian Cruise Line Limited's Motion for Summary Judgement, # 2 Declaration of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
209 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 203 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended ComplaintFirst MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended ComplaintFirst MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended ComplaintFirst MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
210 CONCISE STATEMENT of Facts re 208 Response in Opposition to Motion, Concise Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Opposition and Counter−motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Response to Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Limited's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Connie K. Liem, # 2 Exhibit 3, # 3 Exhibit 4, # 4 Exhibit 9, # 5 Exhibit 11, # 6 Exhibit 13, # 7 Exhibit 14, # 8 Exhibit 15, # 9 Exhibit 18, # 10 Exhibit 53, # 11 Exhibit 54, # 12 Exhibit 58, # 13 Exhibit 59, # 14 Exhibit 65, # 15 Exhibit 66, # 16 Exhibit 68, # 17 Exhibit 70, # 18 Exhibit 71, # 19 Exhibit 72, # 20 Exhibit 73, # 21 Exhibit 74, # 22 Exhibit 77, # 23 Exhibit 57, # 24 Exhibit 78, # 25 Exhibit 83, # 26 Exhibit 84, # 27 Exhibit 86, # 28 Exhibit 87, # 29 Exhibit 88, # 30 Exhibit 89, # 31 Exhibit 90, # 32 Exhibit 91, # 33 Declaration of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
211 RESPONSE in Opposition Plaintiff EEOC's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line LTD's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions; Declaration of Connie Liem; Exhibits; Certificate of Service(Docket No.178) filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Connie K. Liem in Support of EEOC's Opposition to Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against EEOC, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 13, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 15, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 18, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 53, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 56, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 57, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 58, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 59, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 65, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 66, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 67, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 68, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 69, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 70, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 71, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 72, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 73, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 74, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit 77, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit 78, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit 84, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit 86, # 28 Exhibit Exhibit 87, # 29 Exhibit Exhibit 88, # 30 Exhibit Exhibit 90, # 31 Exhibit Exhibit 91, # 32 Exhibit Exhibit 92)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
212 RESPONSE in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment Opposition and Counter−Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Response to Defendant NCL Corp. Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgement filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Opposition and Counter−motion to NCL Corp.'s Motion for Summary Judgement, # 2 Affidavit of service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
213 RESPONSE in Opposition re 181 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment Opposition and Counter−motion filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. (Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 01/04/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 27 of 45

01/04/2008
01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008 01/07/2008
01/07/2008 01/07/2008

214 CONCISE STATEMENT of Facts re 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 184 Concise Statement of Facts, Opposition and Counter−motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Response to DEfendant NCL Corp. Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Connie Liem, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit 9, # 6 Exhibit 13, # 7 Exhibit 14, # 8 Exhibit 15, # 9 Exhibit 18, # 10 Exhibit 54, # 11 Exhibit 57, # 12 Exhibit 59, # 13 Exhibit 65, # 14 Exhibit 66, # 15 Exhibit 67, # 16 Exhibit 68, # 17 Exhibit 69, # 18 Exhibit 70, # 19 Exhibit 71, # 20 Exhibit 72, # 21 Exhibit 73, # 22 Exhibit 74, # 23 Exhibit 77, # 24 Exhibit 78, # 25 Exhibit 84, # 26 Exhibit 87, # 27 Exhibit 88, # 28 Exhibit 89, # 29 Exhibit 90, # 30 Exhibit 91, # 31 Exhibit 92, # 32 Exhibit 93)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
215 CONCISE STATEMENT in Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment [Docs 181 and 183] and in support of cross−motion for Summary Judgment [Doc 213] filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Thomas M. Geisness, # 2 Exhibit 1 through 6, # 3 Exhibit 7 through 11)(Geisness, Thomas) Modified on 1/7/2008 to add linkage to 181 , 183 and 213 (emt, ). (Entered: 01/04/2008)
216 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 214 Concise Statement of Facts,,, (Liem, Connie) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
217 Plaintiff EEOC's Opposition and COUNTER−MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment in Response to Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Limited's Motion for Summary Judgment − by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
NOTE: This document was originally e−filed on 1/4/08 by Connie K. Liem, Esq. Please be advised that the Clerks Office has re−entered this document as a counter−motion for partial summary judgment as
indicated in the caption. Also refer to docket entry 208 . (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities [Doc.#181, 182], # 2 Certificate of Service)(emt, ) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
218 Plaintiff EEOC's Opposition and COUNTER−MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment in Response to Defendant NCL Corp., Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment − by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTE: This document
was originally e−filed on 1/4/08 by Connie K. Liem, Esq. Please be advised that the Clerks Office has re−entered this document as a counter−mtion for partial summary judgment as indicated in the caption.
Also refer to docket entry 212 . (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities [Doc.#183, 184], # 2 Certificate of Service)(emt, ) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
219 (COUNTER−MOTION) Plaintiff−Intervenors' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #181] and Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant NCL Corporation, Ltd.,'s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #183] − by Intervenor Plaintiffs Ahmed Al−Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Samed Kassam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Abdullah Yahia NOTE: This document was originally e−filed on 1/4/08 by Thomas M. Geisness,
Esq. Please be advised that the Clerks Office has re−entered this document as a counter motion
pursuant to chambers' instruction. Also refer to docket entry 213 . (emt, ) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
ADVISORY ENTRY. The entry docket number 215 Concise Statement in Opposition to Motion, filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany was filed incorrectly in this case. Please be advised that each exhibit must be entered as a separate pdf and labeled accordingly. The filer may refer to Section 2.6 of the Amended General Order Adopting Electronic Case Filing Procedures for further clarification. Further be advised that all items submitted in support of a document should be referenced in the caption. In this instance, the caption on this document did not indicate the inclusion of a declaration and exhibits. Lastly, whenever possible, please "link" responsive documents to the appropriate motions when applicable. (emt, ) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
220 CONCISE STATEMENT in Opposition re 181 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Samed Kassam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Abdullah Yahia. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Thomas M. Geisness, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11)(Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
221 PROTECTIVE ORDER− Signed by JUDGE BARRY M. KURREN on 1/7/08. (emt, ) (Entered: 01/07/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 28 of 45

01/07/2008 01/08/2008 01/08/2008
01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/09/2008 01/10/2008 01/10/2008
01/11/2008
01/11/2008

COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 221 "PROTECTIVE ORDER" has been served on January 7, 2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (emt, ) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
222 Correspondence re: Letter addressed to Magistrate Kurren dated 12/10/07 from Richard Rand re consolidated cases CV 06−00451 and Cv 07−00372. (ecs, ) Modified on 1/9/2008 (emt, ). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
223 Plaintiff−Intervenors' Substantive Joinder to 211 Plaintiff EEOC's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Joinder re 178 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND/OR ITS COUNSEL filed by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 211 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,, filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Samed Kassam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Abdullah Yahia. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Thomas M. Geisness)(Geisness, Thomas) Modified on 1/9/2008 added text to describe caption (emt, ). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
224 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 217 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 218 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment :. Motion Hearing set for 1/22/2008 09:00 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (tbf, ) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 224 Notice of Hearing on Motion has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
225 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 219 Counter MOTION for Summary Judgment :. Motion Hearing set for 1/22/2008 09:00 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (tbf, ) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 225 Notice of Hearing on Motion has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
226 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages on Concise Statement of Facts in Response to All DEfendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.# 188) Connie Liem appearing for Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Connie K. Liem, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
227 Correspondence re: Transmittal letter re two copies (courtesy) of entries 208, 210, 211, 212, 212, 214 and 216 (ecs, ) Modified on 1/11/2008 (emt, ). (Entered: 01/10/2008)
228 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT OF CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS 226 − Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 1/10/08. (emt, ) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 228 "ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT OF CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS" has been served on January 10, 2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (emt, ) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
229 REPLY re 203 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended ComplaintFirst MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended ComplaintFirst MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended ComplaintFirst MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint Reply in Support of Motion filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
230 REPLY re 211 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,, (REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 178 ITS MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST U.S. EQUAL

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 29 of 45

01/11/2008 01/11/2008 01/11/2008
01/11/2008 01/11/2008 01/11/2008 01/11/2008
01/11/2008
01/11/2008
01/14/2008

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND/OR ITS COUNSEL AND PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS AND/OR THEIR COUNSEL FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2007) filed by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christopher S. Yeh, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO LR7.5, # 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(Yeh, Christopher) Modified on 1/14/2008 to stike text and add linkage to 178 (emt, ). (Entered: 01/11/2008)
231 Joint MOTION to Continue January 17, 2008 Pre−Trial Deadline Connie Liem appearing for Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Connie Liem, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
232 REPLY re 223 Joinder,, Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Reply To Plaintiff−Intervenors' Substantive Joiner [Sic] To Plaintiff EEOC's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions [Docket Nos. 178, 211] Filed January 8, 2008 [Doc. #223] filed by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.. (Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
233 REPLY re 213 Response in Opposition to Motion, 219 MOTION for Summary Judgment (REPLY MEMORANDUM TO PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF−INTERVRNORS COUNTER−MOTION) filed by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Declaration of Andrew D. Craven, # 5 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
234 RESPONSE re 215 Concise Statement in Opposition to Motion, filed by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
235 RESPONSE re 214 Concise Statement of Facts,,, filed by Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
236 RESPONSE re 210 Concise Statement of Facts,,,, filed by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of RIchard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
237 REPLY re 212 Response in Opposition to Motion, Defendant NCL Corporation Ltd.s Reply Memorandum In Support Of Its Motion For Summary Judgment Filed November 27, 2007 [Doc #183] And Opposition To Plaintiff EEOCs Counter−Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Filed January 4, 2008 [Doc No. 212] filed by Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
238 REPLY re 208 Response in Opposition to Motion, 217 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2007 AND OPPOSITION TO EEOCS COUNTER−MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT) filed by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christopher S. Yeh, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Certificate of Compliance, # 6 Certificate of Service)(Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
239 Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to LR 7.5 Regarding Document No. 237 for Case No. 06−00451 SPK−BMK; Certificate of Service MOTION to Amend/Correct 237 Reply, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO L.R. 7.5 REGARDING DOCUMENT NO. 237 FOR CASE NO. 06−00451 SPK BMK Richard M. Rand appearing for Defendant Norwegian Corporation Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) Modified on 1/14/2008 to add/strike text (emt, ). (Entered: 01/11/2008)
ADVISORY ENTRY. The entry docket number 239 MOTION to Amend/Correct 237 Reply, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO L.R. 7.5 REGARDING DOCUMENT NO. 237 FOR CASE NO. 06−00451 SPK BMK filed by Norwegian

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 30 of 45

01/14/2008
01/14/2008 01/14/2008
01/15/2008 01/16/2008 01/16/2008 01/16/2008
01/16/2008 01/16/2008 01/17/2008 01/18/2008 01/22/2008

Corporation Ltd. was filed incorrectly in this case. Please be advised that this document was incorrectly docketed as a motion to amend. The pdf attachment indicates that the document is a certificate of compliance. The more appropriate event, in this instance, would have been to docket using the event for notices. The Clerks Office will terminate this "Motion" and amend the docket text to correctly reflect the document caption. (emt, ) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
ADVISORY ENTRY RE: The entry docket numbers 230 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 filed by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd. Please be advised that this case was reassigned to Judge Susan Oki Mollway pursuant to the following: 169 NOTICE − "This case is reassigned to Judge Susan Oki Mollway. Please use the following case number on all future filings: Civil No. 06−00451 SOM−BMK and Civil No. 07−00372 SOM−BMK". For future reference, please indicate correct judge's initials on further filings. (emt, ) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
240 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 178 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND/OR ITS COUNSEL Opposition filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points & Authorities, # 2 Certificate of Word Limitation Under LR 7.5)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
241 MEMORANDUM in Opposition and in Support of Countermotion for Partial Summary Judgment In Response to Norwegian Cruise Line Limited's Motion for Summary Judgement filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Ponts & Authorities in Support of Opposition and Countermotion for Partial Summary Judgment in Response to Norwegian Cruise Line Limited's Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Certitifate of Compliance with Word Limitation Under LR 7.5)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
242 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment Opposition and Counter Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Response to Defendant NCL Corp. LTD.'s Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Compliance on Word Limitation under LR 7.5)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
243 ORDER GRANTING EEOC'S AND PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS' JOINT EX PARTE MOTION TO VACATE JANUARY 17, 2008 PRE−TRIAL DEADLINE 231 − Signed by BARRY M. KURREN on 1/16/08. (emt, ) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 243 "ORDER GRANTING EEOC'S AND PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS' JOINT EX PARTE MOTION TO VACATE JANUARY 17, 2008 PRE−TRIAL DEADLINE" has been served on January 16, 2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (emt, ) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
244 REPLY re 238 Reply, 237 Reply, REPLY TO DEFENDANTS NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LIMITED AND NCL CORP. LTD.S REPLY MEMORANDUMS IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF EEOCS COUNTER−MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORIGINALLY FILED JANUARY 4, 2008 filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
245 MEMORANDUM in Support re 219 MOTION for Summary Judgment Reply in support of Cross−Motion for Sumary Judgment filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. (Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
248 Correspondence re: Transmittal letter dated 1/16/08 re courtesy copies for delivery to SOM (ecs, ) Modified on 1/23/2008 (emt, ). (Entered: 01/22/2008)
249 Correspondence re: Transmittal letters dated 1/17/08 re documents 240, 241 and 242. Re−filed briefs/memos requested by Court. (ecs, ) Modified on 1/23/2008 (emt, ). (Entered: 01/22/2008)
246 JUDGE'S INCLINATIONS − by Judge JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY (emt, ) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
247 EP: Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment 181 ;Plaintiff EEOC's Counter Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Response to

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 31 of 45

01/22/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/24/2008
01/24/2008 01/24/2008

Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Limited's Motion for Summary Judgment 217 Defendant NCL Corporation Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment 183 Plaintiff EEOC's Counter Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Response to Defendant NCL Corp. Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment 218 Plaintiff−Intervenors' Counter Motion to Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment and to Defendant NCL Corporation, Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment 219 Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and/or Its Counsel and Plaintiff−Intervenors and/or Their Counsel 178 [Consolidated with CV 07−00372SPK−BMK] −Arguments.All motions taken under advisement.Court to prepare a written order by the end of the month.Discussion held re: trial schedule.Jury Selection/Trial set for 2/26/08 @ 9:00 a.m. SOM is continued to 4/1/08 @ 9:00 a.m. SOM.All other dates to be reset at the status conference before BMK on 1/24/08. Motion Hearing held on 1/22/2008 re 178 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND/OR ITS COUNSEL filed by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 218 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 217 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 181 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 219 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Ahmed Almraisi, Ahmed Al−Mlhany, Nork Yafaie, Abdullah Yahia, Muthana A. Shaibi, Samed Kassam, Nagi A. Alziam, 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Norwegian Corporation Ltd., Motions Taken Under Advisement: 178 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND/OR ITS COUNSEL, 218 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 217 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 181 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 219 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Jury Selection/Trial set for 09:00 AM on 4/1/2008 before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(tbf, ) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
251 Correspondence re: Transmittal dated 1/17/08 re courtesy copies of electronic filings (ecs, ) Modified on 1/24/2008 (emt, ). (Entered: 01/23/2008)
250 EO: 205 −MOTION for Joinder re 203 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint, 203 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint, Status Conference Re PreTrial Deadlines and Final PreTrial Conference set for hearing on 1/24/2008 are hereby continued to 1/25/2008 at 02:00 PM before Judge BARRY M. KURREN. (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(lls, ) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − Re− 250 −Reset Motions'has been served 1/23/2008 on Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (lls, ) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
252 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 192 MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain filed by Samed Kassam. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Thomas M. Geisness, # 2 Certificate of Compliance, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
253 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 177 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS AND/OR THEIR COUNSEL filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Samed Kassam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Abdullah Yahia. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
254 CONCISE STATEMENT of Facts re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 192 MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 32 of 45

01/24/2008 01/24/2008 01/24/2008
01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/25/2008

Plain MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain filed by Samed Kassam. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
255 MEMORANDUM in Opposition Plaintiff EEOC's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Connie K. Liem in Support of EEOC's Opposition to Defendant Norwegian Curise Line Limited's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against EEOC, # 2 Exhibit #s 2, 9, 21, 22, 26, 49, 50, 65, 75, 78, 93, 94, 102)(Liem, Connie) Modified on 1/25/2008 NOTE:
This document has been refiled as 256 and viewing to the exhibits attached to this entry has been
restricted. The filer has attached redacted exhibits to entry 256 . (emt, ). (Entered: 01/24/2008)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY. The entry docket number 255 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was filed incorrectly in this case. Please be advised that each exhibit must be attached to the main document as separate pdfs and labeled accordingly. The filer may refer to section 2.6 of the Amended General Order Adopting Electronic Case Filing Procedures for further clarification. The filer is also advised to refer to sections 11.1 through 11.3 of the user's guide for information concerning personal identifiers as there appear to be some personal identifiers within the exhibits submitted in document 255 . The filing party shall re−submit a corrected filing. (emt, ) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
256 Plaintiff EEOC's MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Opposition to 179 Defendants' Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions RESPONSE in Opposition re 179 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND/OR ITS COUNSEL AND PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS AND/OR THEIR COUNSEL Memorandum in Opposition filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Anna Y. Park, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 9, # 4 Exhibit 21, # 5 Exhibit 22, # 6 Exhibit 26, # 7 Exhibit 49, # 8 Exhibit 50, # 9 Exhibit 65, # 10 Exhibit 75, # 11 Exhibit 78, # 12 Exhibit 93, # 13 Exhibit 94, # 14 Exhibit 102, # 15 Certificate of Word Limit Compliance Under L.R. 7.5, # 16 Certificate of Service)(Park, Anna) Modified on 1/25/2008 (emt, ). (Entered: 01/24/2008)
257 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie Certificate of Compliance − LR7.5 filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Compliance LR7.5)(Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
258 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 192 MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain Memorandum in Opposition filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Word Limitation, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Park, Anna) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
259 CONCISE STATEMENT in Opposition re 192 MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain, 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Concise Statement of Facts filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Anna Y Park, # 2 Exhibit 22, # 3 Exhibit 39, # 4 Exhibit 48, # 5 Exhibit 49, # 6 Exhibit 65, # 7 Exhibit 75, # 8 Exhibit 96, # 9 Exhibit 110, # 10 Exhibit 111, # 11 Certificate of Service)(Park, Anna) Modified on 2/1/2008 NOTE: Viewing of Exhibits 22, 39, and 48 has

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 33 of 45

01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/25/2008
01/25/2008

been restricted to case participants. The filer has submitted redacted versions of these exhibits − please
refer to docket entry 278 . (emt, ). (Entered: 01/25/2008)
260 OBJECTION re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 192 MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain Objections filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Park, Anna) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
261 CONCISE STATEMENT in Opposition re 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie in support of Memorandum in Opposition (Doc #257) filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Thomas M. Geisness, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29)(Geisness, Thomas) Modified on 1/29/2008 NOTE: Viewing
of exhibits 24 and 25 has been restricted to case participants only. The filer has submitted a redacted
version of these exhibits − please refer to docket entry 268 . (emt, ). (Entered: 01/25/2008)
262 EEOC's COUNTER MOTION for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, OPPOSITION to All Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 187 , 188 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie Opposition and Counter Motion For Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Opposition and Counter Motion, # 2 Certificate of Word Limitation, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Park, Anna) Modified on 1/28/2008 to change event type to motion, add/strike text (emt, ). (Entered: 01/25/2008)
263 OBJECTION re 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie Objections and Request to Strike Defendants' Concise Statement of Facts filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Park, Anna) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
264 CONCISE STATEMENT in Opposition re 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie Concise State Opposing Summary Judgment and Supporting Counter Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Anna Park Regarding Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 6, # 4 Exhibit 9, # 5 Exhibit 12, # 6 Exhibit 17, # 7 Exhibit 18, # 8 Exhibit 19, # 9 Exhibit 21, # 10 Exhibit 22, # 11 Exhibit 23, # 12 Exhibit 24, # 13 Exhibit 25, # 14 Exhibit 26, # 15 Exhibit 34, # 16 Exhibit 35, # 17 Exhibit 39, # 18 Exhibit 48, # 19 Exhibit 49, # 20 Exhibit 50, # 21 Exhibit 60, # 22 Exhibit 65, # 23 Exhibit 75, # 24 Exhibit 78, # 25 Exhibit 85, # 26 Exhibit 93, # 27 Exhibit 94, # 28 Exhibit 95, # 29 Exhibit 96, # 30 Exhibit 97, # 31 Exhibit 99, # 32 Exhibit 109, # 33 Certificate of service)(Park, Anna) Modified on 2/1/2008 NOTE: Viewing of exhibits 6, 9,
22, 34, 48 and 96 has been restricted to case participants only. The filer has submitted a redacted
version of these exhibits − please refer to docket entry 279 . (emt, ). (Entered: 01/25/2008)
265 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie, 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 192 MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 34 of 45

01/25/2008
01/25/2008
01/25/2008 01/28/2008 01/28/2008 01/28/2008

To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain Motion Anna Y. Park appearing for Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs Ahmed Al−Mlhany, Ashmed Almlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Samed Kassam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Abdullah Yahia, Consol Plaintiff Ashmed Almlhany, Defendants NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Victor Viramontes, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Park, Anna) Modified on 1/25/2008 NOTE: This document has been refiled as entry 267 . (emt, ). (Entered: 01/25/2008)
266 EP: 203 Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint GRANTED. Ms. Liem to prepare the order and file the Amended Complaint. Deadline to file dispositive motions as to NCL (Bahamas) is 2/15/2008. Parties to file a Stipulation to Dismiss as to NCL defendants. Any issue of costs as to the NCL defendants shall be addressed before Judge Susan O. Mollway. Mr. Rand has till 2/29/2008 to take the deposition of the FBI agent. Status Conference Re Pretrial Deadlines − trial is continued to 4/1/2008. Court to prepare an amended scheduling order. Jury Selection/Trial set for 09:00 AM on 4/1/2008 before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. Motions as to NCL (Bahamas) due by 2/15/2008. Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/19/2008 10:00 AM before Judge BARRY M. KURREN. (FTR−Ctrm C6F, 2 − 2:16) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
267 EEOC's Ex Parte APPLICATION to Shorten Time Because the Court's Electronic Filing System Was Not Functioning 185 , 187 , 192 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie, 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 192 MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of Plain MOTION for Joinder re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment As To All Claims By Or On Behalf Of PlainAnna Y. Park appearing for Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Victor Viramontes, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Park, Anna) Modified on 1/28/2008 add/strike text (emt, ). (Entered: 01/25/2008)
ADVISORY ENTRY. Counsel has notified that the Clerks Office that it will refile docket number 265 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC as the incorrect filer and motion type was selected. (emt, ) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
ADVISORY ENTRY. Please be advised that some exhibits attached to docket number 261 Concise Statement in Opposition to Motion filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany contain personal identifiers (SSN, DOB, etc). The filer should refer to sections 11.1 through 11.3 of the Amended General Order Adopting Electronic Case Filing Procedures for more information concerning personal identifiers and counsel's responsibility. The filer may wish to submit a redacted version (which includes a cover page, counsel identification and caption) of the affected exhibits and link the redacted version to the concise statement. Upon the filing of the redacted exhibits, the Clerks Office will restrict viewing to the affected exhibits contained in the concise statement. (emt, ) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
268 (REDACTED) EXHIBITS #24 AND #25 to 261 Plaintiff−Intervenors' Statement of Material Facts in Support of Memorandum in Opposition to [Doc. #275] Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #187] Additional Exhibits to 261 Concise Statement in Opposition to Motion,,, filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany, Ahmed Almraisi, Nagi A. Alziam, Samed Kassam, Muthana A. Shaibi, Nork Yafaie, Abdullah Yahia. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 24, # 2 Exhibit 25)(Geisness, Thomas) Modified on 1/29/2008 to add/strike text(emt, ). (Entered: 01/28/2008)
ADVISORY ENTRY. Please be advised that some exhibits attached to the following entries 259 Concise Statement in Opposition to Motion, 264 Concise Statement in Opposition to Motion and 262 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission contain personal identifiers (SSN, DOB,

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 35 of 45

01/28/2008 01/28/2008 01/28/2008 01/28/2008 01/28/2008 01/28/2008
01/28/2008 01/28/2008 01/28/2008

etc.). The filer may refer to sections 11.1 through 11.3 of the Amended General Order Adopting Electronic Case Filing Procedures for more information. The filer should reference the earlier advisory entry of 1/28/08 concerning personal identifiers. (emt, ) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
SUPPLEMENTAL ADVISORY ENTRY. The previous advisory entry regarding personal identifiers should not apply to document 262 filed by EEOC. (emt, ) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
269 Plaintiff−Intervenors' JOINDER to 263 Plaintiff EEOC's Objections and Request to Strike in Response to 188 Defendant's Concise Statement of Facsts [Doc. 187, 188] Joinder re 188 Concise Statement of Facts,,, filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Corporation Ltd., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 263 Objection, filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. (Geisness, Thomas) Modified on 1/29/2008 to add text (emt, ) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
270 Plaintiff−Intervenors' JOINDER to 262 Plaintiff EEOC's Counter Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Joinder re 262 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. (Geisness, Thomas) Modified on 1/29/2008 add text, modified docketing event to "joinder to motion"(emt, ). (Entered: 01/28/2008)
271 AMENDED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER − Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 1/28/08. (emt, ) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 271 "AMENDED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER" has been served on January 28, 2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (emt, ) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
272 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 267 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie, 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 192 MOTION f MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie, 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 192 MOTION f MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie, 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 192 MOTION f MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie, 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 192 MOTION f MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie, 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 192 MOTION f filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
273 Plaintiff−Intervenor's Joinder re 256 Plaintiff EEOC's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions 179 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. (Geisness, Thomas) Modified on 1/29/2008 to add text (emt, ). (Entered: 01/28/2008)
274 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 262 Counter MOTION for Summary Judgment :. Motion Hearing set for 2/11/2008 09:45 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (tbf, ) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 274 Notice of Hearing on Motion has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 01/28/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 36 of 45

01/28/2008 01/28/2008 01/29/2008 01/29/2008 01/29/2008 01/31/2008 01/31/2008
01/31/2008
01/31/2008
01/31/2008 01/31/2008
01/31/2008

275 ORDER Granting 267 EEOC's Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time Because the Court's Electronic Filing System Was Not Functioning − Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 1/28/08. (emt, ) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 275 "ORDER Granting 267 EEOC's Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time Because the Court's Electronic Filing System" has been served on January 28, 2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (emt, ) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
276 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 270 MOTION for Joinder :. Motion Hearing set for 2/11/2008 09:45 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (tbf, ) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 276 Notice of Hearing on Motion has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
277 Correspondence re: Transmittal letter dated 1/25/08 re courtesy copies of re−filed briefs/memos 256, 258, 259 and 260 requested by Court. (ecs, ) Modified on 1/30/2008 (emt, ). (Entered: 01/29/2008)
278 (REDACTED) EEOC's Amended Exhibits for Docket No. 259 Additional Exhibits to 259 Concise Statement in Opposition to Motion,,, Redacted Versions of Previously Filed Exhibits filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 22, # 2 Exhibit 39, # 3 Exhibit 48)(Viramontes, Victor) Modified on 2/1/2008 to add/strike text(emt, ). (Entered: 01/31/2008)
279 (REDACTED) EEOC's Amended Exhibits For Docket No. 264 Additional Exhibits to 264 Concise Statement in Opposition to Motion,,,, Redacted Versions of Previously Filed Exhibits filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6, # 2 Exhibit 9, # 3 Exhibit 19, # 4 Exhibit 22, # 5 Exhibit 34, # 6 Exhibit 48, # 7 Exhibit 96)(Viramontes, Victor) Modified on 2/1/2008 to add/strike text (emt, ). (Entered: 01/31/2008)
280 MEMORANDUM in Support re 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit 31, # 3 Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to LT7.5, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
281 MEMORANDUM in Support re 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To All Claims By The EEOC and By Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi and Yafaie and Opposition To 262 Plaintiff EEOCs Counter−Motion for Summary Judgment filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew Lewis, # 2 Exhibit 30, # 3 Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to LR7.5, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
282 REPLY re 177 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS AND/OR THEIR COUNSEL filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit C, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
283 REPLY re 179 MOTION for Sanctions AGAINST U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND/OR ITS COUNSEL AND PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS AND/OR THEIR COUNSEL filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
284 RESPONSE re 262 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., Norwegian Corporation Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to L.R. 7.5, # 9 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/31/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 37 of 45

01/31/2008 01/31/2008 02/01/2008
02/01/2008
02/05/2008 02/06/2008 02/07/2008 02/07/2008 02/08/2008 02/08/2008

285 REPLY re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NCL America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit E, # 4 Exhibit F, # 5 Exhibit G, # 6 Exhibit H, # 7 Certificate of Compliance, # 8 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
286 REPLY re 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NCL America, Inc.. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
287 ORDER DENYING NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.'S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS, GRANTING NCL CORPORATION LTD.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING BOTH OF EEOC'S COUNTER MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. AND NCL CORPORATION LTD., AND DENYING BOTH OF PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS' COUNTER MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. AND NCL CORPORATION LTD. 178 , 181 , 183 , 217 , 218 , 219 − Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on January 31, 2008. [This order leaves for future adjudication all claims against NCL America, as well as newly alleged claims against NCL Bahamas.] Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(emt, ) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of "ORDER DENYING NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.'S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS, GRANTING NCL CORPORATION LTD.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING BOTH OF EEOC'S COUNTER MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. AND NCL CORPORATION LTD., AND DENYING BOTH OF PLAINTIFF−INTERVENORS' COUNTER MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD. AND NCL CORPORATION LTD" has been served on January 31, 2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(emt, ) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
288 Transmittal letter dated 1/30/08 re courtesy copies from Geisness Law Firm (ecs, ) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
289 REPLY re 262 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 281 Memorandum in Support of Motion, REPLY TO ALL DEFENDANTS REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF EEOCS COUNTER−MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Word Limitation Under LR 7.5, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
290 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 180 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Compliance, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
291 RESPONSE re 180 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by NCL America, Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
292 Joint MOTION to Continue JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE/VACATE FEBRUARY 12 and 19, 2008 PRE−TRIAL DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER; EXPEDITED RULING REQUESTED Connie Liem appearing for Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
293 EO:Re 274 −Notice of Hearing on Motions set for 2/11/2008 before Judge Mollway−The court is unable to issue its usual prehearing inclination in light of matters arising on short notice in unrelated cases. The court will attempt to announce an inclination at the start of the hearing on February 11, 2008. (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(lls, ) (Entered: 02/08/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 38 of 45

02/11/2008 02/11/2008 02/11/2008
02/13/2008 02/14/2008 02/15/2008
02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008

294 Transmittal from EEOC regarding courtesy copies, dated February 7, 2008. (emt, ) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
295 ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE FEBRUARY 12 AND 19, 2008 PRETRIAL DEADLINES (DOC. #292) − Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 2/11/08. ( The Court finds that good cause exists to continue the deadline for the parties' Pre−trial
Statement to February 19, 2008, and the Final Pre−Trial Conference to February 26, 2008 at 3:00 PM.
Motion terminated: 292 ) (emt, ) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
296 EP: VARIOUS MOTIONS Hearing held on 2/11/2008 NCL America Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment as to All Claims by or on Behalf of Plaintiff−Intervenor Samed Kassem 185 ; Substantive Joinder of Defendants Norweigian Cruise Line Ltd. and NCL Corporation Ltd. in Defendant NCL America Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment as to All Claims by or on Behalf of Plaintiff−Intervenor Samed Kassem filed 11/27/07 192 ; Defendants NCL America Inc., NCL Corporation Ltd., and Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment as to All Claims by the EEOC and by Intervenors Yahia, Al−Mlhany, Almraisi, Alziam, Shaibi, and Yafaie 187 ; Defendants NCL America Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., and NCL Corporation Ltd.'s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against Plaintiff−Intervenors and/or Their Counsel 177 ; Defendants NCL America Inc., Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., and NCL Corporation Ltd.'s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and/or Its Counsel and Plaintiff−Intervenors and/or Their Counsel 179 ; EEOC's Counter Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Opposition to All Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 262 ; Plaintiff−Intervenors' Joinder to Plaintiff EEOC's Counter Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 270 − MOTIONS TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (Court Reporter Debra K. Chun.) Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY) (bbb, ) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
297 Transmittal from EEOC regarding courtesy copies, dated February 8, 2008. (emt, ) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
298 REPLY re 180 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 290 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion Reply in Support of EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Word Count Limitation Under LR 7.5, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
299 NOTICE of Filing First Amended Complaint by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 266 Terminate Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R), Set Deadlines/Hearings, Motion Hearing, Status Conference, Terminate Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R),,,, Terminate Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R),,,, Terminate Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R),,, Notice of Filing First Amended Complaint U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) Modified on 2/19/2008 to add/strike text (emt, ). (Entered: 02/15/2008)
300 AMENDED COMPLAINT 's First Amended Complaint against NCL America, Inc., filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
301 Transmittal from EEOC regarding courtesy copies, dated February 14, 2008. (emt, ) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
302 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Norwegian Cruise Line Limited Connie Liem appearing for Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
303 MOTION for Summary Judgment Richard M. Rand appearing for Defendant NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support Of Motion, # 2 Certificate Of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
304 CONCISE STATEMENT of Facts re 303 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard M. Rand, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 39 of 45

02/19/2008
02/19/2008 02/19/2008 02/19/2008 02/19/2008 02/19/2008 02/19/2008 02/20/2008 02/20/2008 02/20/2008
02/20/2008

Certificate Of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
ADVISORY ENTRY RE: The entry docket number 302 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Norwegian Cruise Line Limited filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If the filer has not already done so, please forward the stipulation to the district judge for signature. The filer may refer to Sections 9.1 through 9.3 of the Amended General Order Adopting Electronic Case Filing Procedures for more information concerning the electronic submission of proposed orders. (emt, ) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
305 EO: 180 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 2/25/2008 @ 9:00 a.m. is rescheduled to 09:45 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(tbf, ) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 305 Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R) has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
306 Declaration re 304 Concise Statement of Facts,. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert Kritzman, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
307 Pretrial Conference Statement by NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., NCL America, Inc.. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
308 Pretrial Conference Statement by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. (Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
309 Pretrial Conference Statement by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
310 ORDER GRANTING EEOC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. #203) 203 − Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 2/19/08. [The Court grants the motion for EEOC to add NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. ] (emt, ) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
311 ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LIMITED (DOC. #302) (302 in 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK) − Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 2/19/08. [Defendant Norwegian Cruise Line Limited is hereby
dismissed with prejudice from this matter. Any issue as to costs and fees shall be addressed to this
Court.] Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(emt, ) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
312 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART NCL AMERICA, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS BY OR ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF−INTERVENOR SAMED KASSEM; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS BY THE EEOC AND BY INTERVENORS; ORDER DENYING EEOC'S COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER DENYING BOTH OF DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.'S MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS re 177 , 179 , 185 , 187 , 192 , 262 , 263 , 270 − Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 2/19/08. [The court grants Defendants' Constructive Discharge Motion with regard
to the NIED claim, but denies the motion with respect to all remaining claims. With respect to Defendants' Actual Discharge Motion, the court grants Defendants' motion with regard to the NIED claims and repatriation damage claims, and limits Alziam's damages because of after−acquired evidence. In all other respects, the Actual Discharge Motion is denied. The court denies the EEOC's counter motion for summary judgment and both of Defendants' motions for Rule 11 sanctions. All joinders are terminated consistent with this order, and the EEOC's request to strike, Doc. No. 263, is itself stricken. This order leaves for future adjudication all Title VII and § 1981 claims, as well as
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378−2 claims and IIED claims.]Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(emt, ) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of "ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART NCL AMERICA, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS BY OR ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF−INTERVENOR SAMED KASSEM; ORDER GRANTING IN PART

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 40 of 45

02/20/2008 02/20/2008 02/20/2008
02/20/2008 02/21/2008 02/22/2008 02/26/2008 02/26/2008
02/26/2008 02/26/2008

AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.'S MOTIO N FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS BY THE EEOC AND BY INTERVENORS; ORDER DENYING EEOC'S COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER DENYING BOTH OF DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC.'S MOTIONS FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS" (312 in 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 312 in 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 22 in 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK, 22 in 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK) has been served on February 20, 2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(emt, ) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
313 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 303 MOTION for Summary Judgment :. Motion Hearing set for 4/21/2008 10:30 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (tbf, ) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 313 Notice of Hearing on Motion has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
314 EO: The hearing set for February 25 is cancelled, and the court will decide without a hearing the EEOC's summary judgment motion previously set for hearing on that date. The parties are directed to seek a new trial date from the Magistrate Judge in light of the recent NCL (Bahamas) summary judgment motion. The new trial date should be no later than June 10, 2008.. (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(tbf, ) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of EO 314 Terminate Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R), Terminate Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R) has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
315 Transmittal regarding courtesy copies from EEOC, dated February 15, 2008. (emt, ) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
316 Letter addressed to Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren from Christopher Yeh, Esq., dated February 7, 2008. (emt, ) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
317 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF EEOC'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC. 180 − Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 2/25/08. Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(emt, ) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of "ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF EEOC'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA, INC." (23 in 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK) has been served on February 26, 2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(emt, ) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
318 EP: Final Pretrial Conference − new dates given. Court to prepare an amended scheduling order. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/1/2008 09:30 AM before Judge BARRY M. KURREN. Jury Selection/Trial set for 09:00 AM on 5/6/2008 before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (FTR−Ctrm C6 no record, 3:07 − 3:17) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
319 EP: Final Pretrial Conference − new dates given. Court to prepare an amended scheduling order. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/1/2008 09:30 AM before Judge BARRY M. KURREN. Jury Selection/Trial set for 09:00 AM on 5/6/2008 before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (FTR−Ctrm C6 no record, 3:07 − 3:17.) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 02/27/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 41 of 45

02/27/2008 02/27/2008 02/27/2008 03/05/2008 03/06/2008 03/06/2008 03/06/2008 03/07/2008 03/10/2008
03/11/2008
03/11/2008

ADVISORY ENTRY. RE: The entry docket number 318 Final Pretrial Conference−Mag, Set Deadlines/Hearings. Please be advised that the wrong pdf image was attached to this docket entry. The Clerks Office will resubmit these minutes. (emt, ) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
320 AMENDED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER − Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 2/27/08. (emt, ) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 320 "AMENDED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER" has been served on February 27, 2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (emt, ) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
321 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., NCL America, Inc. re 310 Order (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christopher S. Yeh, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Yeh, Christopher) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
322 DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA INC.'S ANSWER to 300 Amended Complaint FILED FEBRUARY 15, 2008; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by NCL America, Inc..(Rand, Richard) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
323 ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER GRANTING EEOC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 321 − Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 3/6/08. [Motion terminated: 321
APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., NCL
America, Inc. re 310 Order filed by NCL America, Inc., NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.] (emt, ) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 323 "ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER GRANTING EEOC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT" has been served on March 6, 2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (emt, ) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
324 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany.(Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
325 MOTION for Reconsideration of 312 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part NCL America, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment as to All Claims by or on Behalf of Plaintiff−Intervenor Samed Kassem filed February 20, 2008 and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant NCL America, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment as to All Claims by the EEOC and by Intervenors Order, Terminate Motions Richard M. Rand appearing for Defendants NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., NCL America, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Motion, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Rand, Richard) Modified on 3/11/2008 to add/strike text (emt, ). (Entered: 03/10/2008)
326 EO: In reviewing the defense reconsideration motion, the court notes that it was filed more than 10 business days from the filing of the underlying order. If Defendants contend that their reconsideration motion was timely filed, they must file an explanation of timeliness. That explanation shall be no more than 350 words and shall be filed no later than 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 12, 2008. If Defendants conclude that their reconsideration motion was untimely, they may withdraw their reconsideration motion or file a motion to extend the time in which to seek reconsideration. Any extension motion must be filed no later than 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 12, 2008. re 325 MOTION for Reconsideration re 312 Order, Terminate Motions,,,,,,,,,,,, MOTION for Reconsideration re 312 Order, Terminate Motions,,,,,,,,,,,, MOTION for Reconsideration re 312 Order, Terminate Motions,,,,,,,,,,,,. (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(tbf, ) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 326 Link,,, has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 03/11/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 42 of 45

03/12/2008 03/13/2008 03/13/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/17/2008
03/17/2008
03/25/2008 03/25/2008 03/25/2008 03/28/2008 03/28/2008

327 STATEMENT Explanation Of Timeliness Or, Alternatively, Motion For Extension filed by NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., NCL America, Inc.. (Yeh, Christopher) Modified on 3/13/2008 − docketing event modified to reflect filing as a motion. (emt, ). (Entered: 03/12/2008)
328 EO: EEOC and Plaintiffs−Intervenors may address the timeliness issue raised in the court's March 11, 2008, EO (Docket No. 326) in a responsive memorandum to be filed by no later than 3 p.m. on Friday, March 14. re 327 Statement. (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(tbf, ) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of EO 328 Link, has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
329 RESPONSE re 327 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration/Explanation of Timeliness filed by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. (Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
330 RESPONSE in Opposition re 327 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Word Count Limitation, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
331 EO: Defendants' reconsideration motion was untimely filed more than 10 days after the underlying order was filed. Defendants' argument that it is entitled to 3 additional days based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 is unpersuasive, as that rule permits an additional 3 days only when a deadline is calculated based on service, not filing. The reconsideration deadline clearly runs from the filing of the underlying order, not its service. However, this court grants Defendants' request to extend the time for filing their reconsideration motion. Plaintiffs are not prejudiced by Defendants' untimely filing, and the parties are, in any event, scheduled to be before the court for a hearing on another matter on April 21, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. Defendants' reconsideration motion is set for hearing at the same time, with opposition and reply memoranda concerning the reconsideration motion due in the ordinary course under Local Rule 7.4.Motions terminated: 327 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by NCL America, Inc., NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 325 MOTION for Reconsideration re 312 Order, Terminate Motions,,,,,,,,,,,, MOTION for Reconsideration re 312 Order, Terminate Motions,,,,,,,,,,,, MOTION for Reconsideration re 312 Order, Terminate Motions,,,,,,,,,,,,. Motion Hearing set for 4/21/2008 10:30 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(tbf, ) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of EO 331 Terminate Motions, Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R),, Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R),, Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R),, Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R),, Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R),, Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R) has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
332 Pretrial Conference Statement by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Amended Pre−trial Conference Statement. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
333 Pretrial Conference Statement by NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., NCL America, Inc.. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
334 Pretrial Conference Statement by Ahmed Al−Mlhany. (Geisness, Thomas) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
335 EO: Settlement on the Record is set for 3/31/2008 at 11:00 AM Hawaii time before Judge BARRY M. KURREN. (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 335 Set Hearings has been served on 3/28/2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (rwy) (Entered: 03/28/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 43 of 45

03/31/2008
04/14/2008 04/15/2008 04/30/2008 05/13/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/16/2008 05/19/2008
05/19/2008 05/21/2008 05/23/2008 05/23/2008 05/23/2008

336 EP: Settlement Placed on the Record. Consent Decree to be filed. Status Conference Re Dismissal is set for 4/15/2008 @ 9 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren. All other dates/deadlines vacated. Terminated: [303} Defendant NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.'s Motion for Summary Judgment and 325 Defendants NCL America Inc. and NCL (Bahamas Ltd.'s Motion for Reconsideration. Notified: Toni Fujinaga. (FTR−Ctrm C6F, 11:11 − 11:15) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
337 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings Various Motions held on 2/11/08 before Judge Susan Oki Mollway. Court Reporter: Debra Chun. (dc@hid.uscourts.gov) pp. 39. (Entered: 04/14/2008)
338 EP: Status Conference Re Dismissal held. Further Status Conference 4/30/2008 @ 9 a.m. Hawaii time before Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren. (FTR−Ctrm C6 no record, 9:05 − 9:20) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
339 EP: Status Conference Re Dismissal held. Parties to continue to work on settlement and notify the court of their progress. (FTR−Ctrm C6 no record, 8:58 − 9:06) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
340 Letter to counsel from Judge Susan Oki Mollway dated May 13, 2008 with attached fax transmission confirmation. (emt, ) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
341 NOTICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Notice of Settlement U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Consent Decree and Order, # 2 Exhibit A to Decree, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
342 OBJECTION re 341 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) EEOC's Objections to Defendants' Propsoed Order Dismissing NCL America, Inc. Without Prejudice filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Cert. of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
343 RESPONSE re 342 Objection, Opposition to Plaintiff EEOC's Objection to Defendants' Proposed Order Dismissing Defendant NCL America Inc. Without Prejudice filed by NCL America, Inc.. (Rand, Richard) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
344 EO: The parties appear to have a dispute about whether dismissal without prejudice of NCL America is or is not part of the settlement agreement. The district judge will not enter the consent decree until this matter is resolved. The parties are directed to return to Magistrate Judge Kurren no later than May 30, 2008, to address this matter if they are unable to come to an agreement. No later than May 30, 2008, the EEOC must send a letter to the district judge, with copies to counsel for other parties, stating the status of discussions re 341 Notice (Other), Notice (Other). (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(tbf, ) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of EO 344 Link,, has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (tbf, ) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
345 Letter addressed to Judge Susan Oki Mollway from Anna Y. Park, Esq., dated May 21, 2008. (SEALED) (emt, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/22/2008: # 1 mailing documentation) (emt, ). (Entered: 05/22/2008)
346 EO: Status Conference pursuant to Judge Susan O. Mollway's order of 5/14/2008 is set for 5/28/2008 at 01:30 PM before Judge BARRY M. KURREN. (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 346 Set Hearings has been served on 5/23/2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (rwy) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
347 EO: Status Conference pursuant to Judge Susan O. Mollway's order of 5/14/2008 is continued from 5/28/2008 to 5/29/2008 at 02:00 PM before Judge BARRY M. KURREN. (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 05/23/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 44 of 45

05/23/2008 05/27/2008 05/27/2008 05/28/2008 05/29/2008 05/30/2008
06/04/2008 06/04/2008
06/04/2008
06/04/2008 06/04/2008 06/04/2008 06/04/2008

COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 347 Set Deadlines/Hearings has been served on 5/23/2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (rwy) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
348 EO: Status Conference set for 5/29/2008 is moved to 5/28/2008 at 10:30 AM Hawaii time before Judge BARRY M. KURREN. (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 348 Set Deadlines/Hearings has been served on 5/27/2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (rwy) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
349 EP: Status Conference Re Settlement Agreement held. Parties to report to Judge Susan O. Mollway that parties are in agreement. (FTR−Ctrm Chambers, 10:30 − 10:40) (Judge BARRY M. KURREN)(rwy) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
354 Letter addressed to Judge Susan Oki Mollway from EEOC, dated May 29, 2008. (emt, ) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
350 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 03/31/08, before Judge Kurren. Court Reporter/Transcriber Jessica Cahill, Telephone number (808)244−0776. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 6/17/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/27/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/25/2008. (Cahill, Jessica)maukele_estates@hotmail.com (Entered: 05/30/2008)
351 ORDER ON CONSENT DECREE (DOC. #341) − Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 6/3/08. [The Court hereby retains jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the Decree.] (341 in 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK), (24 in 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK) Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(emt, ) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
352 ORDER CLOSING CASES AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA INC. WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 41(b)(2) − Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 6/3/08. [Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)(2), IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that these matters are closed subject to the Court's jurisdiction to enforce the Consent Decree entered concurrently herein, and that Defendant NCL America Inc. is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the Decree as set forth in the
Consent Decree.] Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(emt, ) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − copies of "ORDER ON CONSENT DECREE (DOC. #341)" (351 in 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 25 in 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK) and "ORDER CLOSING CASES AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT NCL AMERICA INC. WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 41(b)(2)" (26 in 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK, 352 in 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK) have been served on June 4, 2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Associated Cases: 1:06−cv−00451−SOM−BMK, 1:07−cv−00372−SOM−BMK(emt, ) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
353 JUDGMENT entered on 6/4/08. (emt, ) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 353 JUDGMENT has been served on June 4, 2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (emt, ) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
355 JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS (BAHAMAS) LTD; ORDER − Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 6/4/08. [Defendant NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. is hereby dismissed with prejudice from this matter.] (emt, ) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
356 AMENDED JUDGMENT entered on 6/4/08. (emt, ) (Entered: 06/04/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-451 As of: 03/30/2018 08:02 AM HST 45 of 45

06/04/2008

COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service − a copy of 356 AMENDED JUDGMENT has been served on June 4, 2008. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (emt, ) (Entered: 06/04/2008)