IN TI-]]E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TI-IE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTI-IERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

Plaintiff,
V.
ACRO SERVICE CORPORATION Defendant. /

HONORABLE
PAUL D. BORM
COMPLAINT AND J~URY, TRIAL DEMAND ~
M AG I ST RATE d AP_.E L,

NATURE OF THE ACTION

r~ ~ ~

Thisis an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Ti_~.~¢I~of th~ivil~

Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis on sex:and to provide

appropriate relief to Christine King, who was adversely affected by such practices. As alleged

with greater particularity in paragraph 7, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission ("Commission" or "EEOC") alleges that Acro Service Corporation ("Defendant" or

"Employer") failed to rehire King following the closing of her branch office, because of her

pregnancy and in retaliation for complaining about her supervisor’s discriminatory remarks about

women.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3)

and 707(e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)

and (3) and § 2000e-6(e) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(t")(1) and (3) and 707(e) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and § 2000e-6(e). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of Michigan, and has continuously had at least I5 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VIL 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days before the institution of this lawsuit, King filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since November 2001, the Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Livonia, Michigan location, in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-(2). Christine King was pregnant. On more than one occasion, Defendant’s manager made derogatory remarks in reference to pregnant women. King subsequently complained about the discriminatory remarks. Shortly afterwards, King’s branch office was closed and she was laid

off. Defendant refused to hire King for other available positions which she was qualified for, but instead hired two males from outside the agency to fill the positions. Defendant’s failure to hire King was because of her pregnancy and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive King of equal employment opportunities and otherwise affect her status as an employee because of her sex.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentionaI.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice and reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of King.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. GRANT a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from discriminating against individuals based upon sex, and retaliating against individuals who oppose discrimination. B. ORDER Defendant to provide mandatory training regarding Title VII and its prohibition against pregnancy discrimination and retaliation to all management and nonmanagement employees. C. ORDER Defendant Employer to make whole King," by providing appropriate and other affirmative relief to eradicate the effect of its unlawful employment practices including, but not limited to, reinstating King to a comparable position, restoring her seniority and fringe benefits, and providing compensation for pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

employment practices complained of in paragraph 7. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole King, by providing appropriate back pay
with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
E. ORDER Defendant Employer to make whole King, by providing nominal damages and compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 including, but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. ORDER Defendant Employer to pay punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
GRANT such further relief as the court deems necessary and proper in the public interest,
H. AWARD the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
ADELE RAPPORT J~1~4833)
4

Regional Attorney
ROBERT DAWKINS Supervisory Trial Attorney
TRINA R. MENGESHA (P59458) ~’ Trial Attorney
DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-4620

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORIGINAL '6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMTSSTON,
Plaintiff,

CIVTL ACTION NO. 03-73250 HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN

v. AeRO SERVICE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

g nfErt:;fEOWfE JUN 2 42004
CLERK'S 0
U.s.DIFSFrFiC/ifcTDcEbZW{-PSG

ADELE RAPPORT (P44833)

MAUREEN ROUSE-AYOUB

ROBERT K. DAWKINS(P38289)

THE FISHMAN GROUP

TRTNA t1ENGESHA (P59458)

Attorney for Defendant

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

40950 Woodward Ave.

COMMISSION

Suite 350

Attorneys for Plaintiff 477 Michigan Ave., Room 865 Detroit, MI. 48226

f \ L E O Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
(248) 258-8700

(313) 226-4620

.IU ~ 2 9 1004

CONSENT DECREE

U. Cs\.j:D:I;\s'-:.<~r" ~O~F~fCIrCWOE3U.ARNi
EASIERI,.

1. Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"). cOlTIlnenced this action on August 29, 2003, in the United States District Court for the E,lstem District ofMichigan, alleging that the Defendant, Aero Service Corp., ("Acto"), engaged in unlawful employment practices against Christine lUng by discriminating against her on the basis of her pregnancy, in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act ("Title VlI") of 1990 and Title 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

1

2. As a result of settlement discussions, the COimnission and the Defendant have resolved their differences and have agreed that this action should be settled by entry ofthis Consent Decree. It is the intent of the parties that this Consent Decree be a final and binding settlement in full disposition ofany and all claims alleged against the Defendant or which might have been alleged against the Defendant in the Complaint.
STIPULATED FACTS
3. The Commission is the agency ofthe United States government authorized by Title VTI to investigate allegations of unlawful employment discrimination against pregnant women and to bring civil actions to prohibit unlawfi.ll practices, and to seek relicftor individuals affected by such practices.
4. Pursuant to Title VII, the parties acknowledge the jurisdiction of the United States District Court tor the Eastem District ofMichigan, over the subject matter and the parties to this ease for the purpose ofentering this Consent Decree and, ifnccessary, for enforcing this Consent Decree.
5. Venue is appropriate in the Bastem District of Michigan. For purposes of this Conscnt Dccrec and any proceedings related 10 Ihis Consent Decree only, the Defendant agrees that all statutory conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit against it have has been fulfilled.
.FINDINGS
6. Having examined the terms and provisions of the Consent Decree and based 011 the pleadings, records, and stipulations of the pmties, the Court finds the following:
a. The Court hasjurisdiclion over the subject matter ol'the action and the parties to this action.
2

· b. The te1ll1S and provisions ofthis Consent Decree are fair, reasonable., andjust. The rights of the Defendant and the Commission are protected adequately by this Consent Decree.
c. This COllsent Decree confonns with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure and Title VII, and is not in derogation onhe rights and privileges ofany person. The entry ofthis Consent Decree will f1ll1her the objectives of Title VII and other applicable law and will be
in the best interests or the parties and those for whom the Commission seeks relief:
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
NON-ADMISSION 7. This Consent Decree, being entered with the consent of the Commission and the Defendant, shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case and shall not bc construed as an admission by the Defendant of any violation of Title VII or any other law, rule or regulation dealing witll or in connection with equal employment opportunities. Similarly, consent to pcrfonnance under this Consent Decree by the Commission does not constitute an admission that any claim asserted by it in thi~ lawsuit was not valid or that any defense of the Defendant was valid.
NON-DISCRIMINATION 8. The Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons in activtl concert or participation with them or any of them shall comply with the provisions of Title VII, 42lJSC § 12101 et seq., with regard to discrimination against pregnant women.
3

NON·RETAUATION 9. The Defendant shall not take any action against any person which constitutes intimidation, retaliation, harassment or interference with the exercise of such person's rights under Tit.le VII because of the filing of Charge No. 230-A2-0921 with the Commission, which fornlS the hasis for the present case, or because such person gave testimony or assistance or participated in any manner in any investigation or proceeding in cOlmection with this case under Title VII.
MONETARY COMl'ENSATION
10. Defendant shall pay Christine (King) Jappy the total sum of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000), subject to applicable tax withholdings. This monetary compensation shall be paid in one check made payahle to Christine Jappy, 17725 Rohert, Melvindale, MI 48122, Defendant shall mail this payment no later than fillecn (I5) days of entry of this decree with the court. Defendant shall mail copies of the check to Adele Rapport, Regional Attorney, 477 Michigan Avenue, Suite 865, Detroit, Michigan 48226. The Commission shall have the right to monitor compliance with this paragraph through inspection 0f all dOCull1ents relaling to said disbursement, including but not limited to, a copy of the check, check stub, retUnl receipt, letters, and any other documents evincing payment hereunder.
TRAINING AND/OR EDUCATIONAL PROCRAMS 11. Defendant agrees to train all managers and supervisors fr0111 its corporate office, including the Director of Human Resources, on the laws prohibiting cmployment discrimination, addressing all forms of protected class discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination, This training will be provided by Thc FislmJan Group. All employees, as stated above, will receive this
4

training within four (4) months of entry ofthis decree. Defendant will provide all new employees with training andior information pursuant to its anti-discrimination policy which is disseminated to each newly hired employee. During the time that this Decree is in elreet, Defendant shall provide the Commission with copies of its training efforts, including but not limited to, the dates oftraining, fOl11m! of the training and the namcs of the attendees.
POSTING OF NOTICE
12. Defendant agrees to post the notice attached as exhibit A to this decree.
DURATION
13. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect for twenty four (24) months.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND COMPLIANCE
14. The Court shall retain jurisdiction and will have all available equitable powers, including injunctive relief, to enforce this Consent Decree. Upon motion of any party, the Court may schedule a hearing for the purpose ofreviewing compliance with this Consent Decree. The parties shall engage ill a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to compliance prior to seeking review by the Court, ilnd shall be required to give notice to each other ten (10) days before moving for such review. All parties may conduct expedited discovery undcr the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of determining compliance with this Consent Decree or defending against a claim of non-compliance, with fifteen (15) business days notice ror depositions, entry to premises and acccss to documents and, with fifteen (15) business days for responses to written discovery.
MISCELLANEOUS
5

15. Except as expressly provided herein, all parties shall bear their own costs and expenses of litigation, including attorney fees.
16. This Consent Decree constitutes the entry of t1nal judgment, within the meaning "fRule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on all claims asserted in or which might have been asserted in this action. This cOUl1 retains jurisdiction over this matter, however, for the purpose of entering appropriate orders interpreting and enforcing this judgment.
17. If any provision(s) of this Consent Decree is fOllnd to be unlawful, only the spedt1e provisions in question shall be affected and the other provisions will remain in full force and effect.
18. The terms of this Consent Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future owners, creditors and successors ofthe Defendant.
19. This Consent Decree constitutes the entire agreement and commitmell(s of the parties. Any modit1cations to this Decree must be mutually agreed upon and memorialized in a writing signed by authol1zed representatives of the Defendant and the Commission.
20. When this Consent Decree requires or permits the submission by the Defendant of any documents to the Commission, ifnot otherwise indicated in the D<:cre<l, they shall be mailed by certified mail to: Adele RapPoli, Regional Attomey, EEOC, Detroit DistJict Office, 477 Michigan Avenue, Suite 865, Patrick V. McNamara Building, Detroit, Michigan 48226.
SO ORDERED this the,;tL day o(SI.A f\ «:..-' , 2004.
United States DistIicl Judge 6

WE HEREBY CONSENT: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Regional Attorney 477 Michigan Avenue, Suile 865 Delroi I, Michigan 48226 (313) 226-6701
ACRO SERVICE CORPORATION
M1&~~~~E~~~~~;~~)
THE FISHMAN GROUP 40950 Woodward Ave" Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 (248) 258-8700
7

ATTACHMENT A NOTICE
TIlis Notice is being posted pursuant to a resolution of a lawsuit against Aero Service Corporation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This Notice is to inform you of your rights guaranteed by federal law under Title VB of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. Section 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII").This federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, and national origin with regard to any term or condition of employment, hiring, layoff, recall, promotion, discharge, pay and fnnge bellefit~, and also prohibits retaliation for opposing unlawful employment practices or because an employee has made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation or litigation conducted by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is the federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination and if necessary, brings lawsuits in federal court to enforce Title VIT.
Aero Service Corporation supports and will comply with Tille VII in all respects and will not take any action against any employee because they have exercised their rights under this law,

DATED

ACRO SERVICE CORPORATION

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111397836065749-L_3...

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03-cv-73250-PDB

CLOSED, WC

EEOC v. ACRO Svc Corp Assigned to: Judge Paul D Borman Demand: $0
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
V. Defendant ACRO Service Corporation

Date Filed: 08/26/2003 Date Terminated: 06/29/2004 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Trina R. Mengesha Equal Employment Opportunities Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Suite 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-4600 Fax: 313-226-2778 Email: trina.mengesha@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Maureen Rouse-Ayoub Fishman Group 40950 Woodward Avenue Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2660 248-258-8700 Fax: 248-258-8745 Email: mrouse-ayoub@fishmangroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/26/2003 10/21/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed - Receipt # USA - Date Fee Received: 8/26/03 (lg) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
2 APPEARANCE for defendant ACRO Svc Corp of attorney Maureen Rouse, with notice (kg) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

1 of 2

5/29/2007 11:02 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111397836065749-L_3...

10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 12/12/2003
04/12/2004 04/12/2004 06/29/2004

3 ANSWER by defendant ACRO Svc Corp to complaint [1-1] with jury demand (kg) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
3 AFFIRMATIVE defenses by defendant ACRO Svc Corp (kg) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
4 PROOF of service by defendant ACRO Svc Corp of [3-1], [3-1], [2-1] (kg) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
5 PRETRIAL scheduling order by Judge Paul D. Borman - setting deadline for witness list for 4/12/04 , setting deadline for discovery for 5/12/04 , setting deadline for filing dispositive motions for 6/11/04 , setting deadline for mediation referral for 5/12/04 (kg) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
6 WITNESS LIST by ACRO Service Corporation (JLam, ) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
7 WITNESS LIST by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (JLam, ) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
8 CONSENT DECREE Signed by Honorable Paul D Borman. (SSchoe, ) (Entered: 07/02/2004)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/29/2007 12:02:31

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 1

Cost:

eeoc 2:03-cv-73250-PDB 0.08

2 of 2

5/29/2007 11:02 AM