Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2002 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLOR!Db

CIVILACTIONNO.:

2 • 22 912

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

tiV:LENARD

)

orcr

)

i0f:~r_"''";'\ :....,,

MAGISTJt.tT.e

-~~~

) SIMOJV'I'Q~~ _.· ;~';

)

4,,-- J ~if>'P"

)

-·•:1/} ~~g

AIRGUIDE CORPORATION, PIONEER METALS, INC. and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.,

)

~~~

)

COMPLAINT

.

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

)

Defendants.

)

)

------------------------------------I

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis ofsex and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Jorge Fiol, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Suarez, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Xiomara Guerrero, Emesto Hedman, Alexis Silva and any other similarly situated individuals, who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater particularity in paragraphs 11 through 14 below, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter the "EEOC" or the "Commission") alleges that Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Suarez, Ms. Guerrero and any other similarly situated females were sexually harassed at Defendants' place of business in Miami, Florida, when they were forced to endure unwelcome sexual comments because of their sex, female. The harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to create a hostile,

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2002 Page 2 of 8

intimidating work environment. The Commission further alleges that Mr. Pineda, Mr. Suarez, Mr. Fiol, Ms. Suarez, Ms. Guerrero, Mr. Hedman and Mr. Silva were retaliated against by Defendants for engaging in protected activity. Defendant Employers' retaliatory conduct created a serious and material change in the terms and conditions of Ms. Suarez's employment rendering her working conditions so intolerable that she was forced to resign.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction ofthis 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) ofTitle VII

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

Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981A.

2.

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the Southern District ofFlorida, Miami Division.

PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 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(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

4. At all relevant times, Defendant Airguide Corporation ("Airguide"), has continuously been a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Miami, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Pioneer Metals, Inc. ("Pioneer"), has continuously been a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Miami, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

2

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2002 Page 3 of 8

6. At all relevant times, Defendant Goodman Global Holdings, Inc. ("Goodman"), has continuously been a Texas corporation doing business in the State ofFlorida and the City ofMiami, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

7.

At all relevant times, Defendant Airguide has continuously been an employer

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

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(b), (g) and (h).

8.

At all relevant times, Defendant Pioneer has continuously been an employer engaged

in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(b), (g) and (h).

9.

At all relevant times, Defendant Goodman has continuously been an employer

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

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(b), (g) and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 10. More than thirty days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, Mr. Fiol, Mr. Pineda, Mr. Suarez, Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Suarez, Ms. Guerrero, Mr. Hedman and Mr. Silva each filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employers. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 11. Since on or about April, 2000, Defendants Airguide, Pioneer and Goodman (collectively "Employers") have engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Miami, Florida, facility, in violation ofSection 703(a)(l) and 704(a) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and 2000e3(a).

3

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2002 Page 4 of 8

12. Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Suarez, Ms. Guerrero, and other similarly situated females were regularly subjected to sexual harassment by their supervisor/manager, Mario Arispe, in the form of unwelcome verbal comments which were sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment.

a) The harassment included, but was not limited to, frequent, derogatory sexual slurs and comments such as "I want you to sleep with me and then you won't have problems with the company", "I have erotic thoughts about you" and "you need a husband who can fuck you right".

b) Defendant Employers are liable for the unlawful sexual harassment to which they subjected Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Suarez, Ms. Guerrero, and other similarly situated females during their employment.
13. Defendant Employers unlawfully retaliated against Mr. Pineda, Mr. Suarez, Mr. Fiol, Ms. Suarez, Ms. Guerrero, Mr. Hedman and Mr. Silva for engaging in protected activity. Specifically, Defendant Employers retaliated against these individuals after they complained to management about what they reasonably believed to be unlawful employment practices; participated in the EEOC's investigation; and/or filed a charge with the Commission. Defendant's unlawful conduct included the following:

a.

Defendant Employers disciplined, suspended and terminated Mr. Pineda.

b. Defendant Employers terminated Mr. Suarez.

c.

Defendant Employers disciplined, demoted, suspended and terminated Mr.

Fiol.

d.

Defendant Employers disciplined and harassed Ms. Suarez.

e. Defendant Employers disciplined and terminated Ms. Guerrero.

4

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2002 Page 5 of 8

f.

Defendant Employers disciplined, demoted and terminated Mr. Hedman.

g. Defendant Employers demoted Mr. Silva.

14. Defendant Employers' retaliatory conduct created a serious and material change in

the terms and conditions of Ms. Suarez's employment rendering her working conditions so

intolerable that she was forced to resign.

15.

The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 11 through 14 above has

been to deprive Mr. Fiol, Mr. Pineda, Mr. Suarez, Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Suarez, Ms. Guerrero, Mr.

Hedman, Mr. Silva and other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and

otherwise adversely affect their status as employees on the basis of sex and retaliation.

16. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 11 through 14

above were intentional.

17. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 11 through 14 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Fiol, Mr. Pineda, Mr. Suarez, Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Suarez, Ms. Guerrero, Mr. Hedman, Mr. Silva and any other similarly situated individuals.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employers, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in unlawful retaliation, sex discrimination, or any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex or retaliation.

5

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2002 Page 6 of 8
B. Order Defendant Employers to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all their employees regardless of sex, or having engaged in a protected activity, which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Mr. Pineda, Mr. Suarez, Mr. Fiol, Ms. Suarez, Ms. Guerrero and Mr. Hedman 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 their unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to, reinstatement, job search expenses and/or front pay.
D. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Mr. Fiol, Mr. Pineda, Mr. Suarez, Ms. Suarez, Ms. Guerrero and Mr. Hedman by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 11 through 14 above, including but not limited to, medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Mr. Fiol, Mr. Pineda, Mr. Suarez, Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Suarez, Ms. Guerrero, Mr. Hedman, Mr. Silva and any other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 11 through 14 above, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment oflife, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employers to pay Mr. Fiol, Mr. Pineda, Mr. Suarez, Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Suarez, Ms. Guerrero, Mr. Hedman, Mr. Silva and any other similarly situated individuals, punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 11 through 14 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
6

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2002 Page 7 of 8
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs ofthis action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint. Respectfully Submitted, NICHOLAS M. INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney MICHAEL FARRELL Supervisory Trial Attorney
L~~~h' Tria Attorney Florida Bar No. 0955876 EEOC One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131-1805 Tel.: (305) 530-6010 or (305) 530-7100 Fax: (305) 536-4494
7

JS4C4ase 1:02-cv-22912-JAL
(Rev. 07189)

Document C1IVILECntOeVreEdRoSnHFELESTD Docket 10/01/2002

Page 8 of 8

The JS..ol4 civil cover sheet and tho information contained herein neither replace nor supplement lho filing and senrice of pludi1191 or other papen • required by 1-. except • provided by local rulu of court. This form, opprovtd by lhl Judicio! Conference of the United States in September t874, Is required for the use of the Ocri< of Court for lho purpose of initiating the civil docket lhcot. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I (a) PLAINTIFFS
UNITED STATES ~ EMPIDYMENI' OPIDRIUNI'IY a:MfiSSIOO'
=~~RE::0:$:~~0~ !f)[;

DEFENDANTS
Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, and Goodman Global Holdings, Inc.
cIv•LENAR0 DADE
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF ARST USTED DEFENDANT _ _ _ _ _ __ (IN U.S. PlAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATlON CASES, USE THE LOCAnON OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED

(C) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) M. Teresa Rodriguez, Esq.

EEOC
2 s. Biscayne, Ste. 2700

Miami, FL 33131.

30-6010

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

(PU\CE AA x .. 0tE IIOX OIC)

IX 1 U.S. Government
Plaintiff

0 3 Federlll Question (U.S. Govemment Nol a Party)

0 2 U.S. Government.

0 4 Diversity

Defendant

(Indicate Citizenship ol

l.dAGISTRATE JU~ in uem 111l

'- .SIMONTON

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
Russell Hamilton III, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 5300 First Union Financial Center
Miami, FL 33131

Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES

(l'l.OCE AA . . . ONE IIOX

(For Diversity Cases Only)

FOR~ N«> 0tE IIOX FOR DEFENDANT)

Citizen of This Slllte

PTF DEF 01 01

Cltlun of Another Slate 02 02

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

03 03

Incorporated 01' Principal Place of Business In This Stat~

Incorporated mel =palm.

of Busl.ap. In

er sri

Forelg~~~ 1'-.J

(./)

O;:"';··c·

CONTRACT
0 11 0 Insurance 01200130 Miller Ad 0 140 ~ lnsWmenl 0 150 Recovery ol Ove<;>oymonl
& Enloroement ol
~
0 151 Meckate Ad 0 152 Recovery ol Delaufted
s-.den!LDone (Exd. Voter.,.!
0 153 Rec:ovwy ol Overpoymn
0 160 Sollo-ckllo.l.d.e·•tsB' Senuietslll 0 190 Olher Conlrad . 0 195 Conlr-=t Producl l.iobMy
REAL PROPERTY
0 21 0 Lind Condemnation 0220 For-.re 0 230 Renl l .... & Ejeclmenl 0 240 lOris .. Und . 0 245 Tort Producl Uablity 0 290 ~ Oilier Real Property

TORTS

PERSONAL INJURY 0 310 Airplane 0 315 Airplane Pr-.cr
IAbitty
0 320 Assaul. Ubel &
Slander
0 330 Fedenll E~·
l..ilbilly
0340-
0 345 -UoliltyProducl
0350iololot"""*0355--
Producl~
0 360 Oilier Porsonol lf1urt

PERSONAL INJURY
0 362 POI'IONI ir1Urv.....,~
0 365 Poroonolir1Urv-
Producll.ial>olly
0368-Pnonol ....ry Producl
l..ioblty
PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 370 Olher F.0 371 ...., In lAn<lnll 0 380 Olher Pnonol
Property Dwn9 0 385 Property Dwn9
Producl~

CIVIL RIGHTS

0441-.g #::2E~
3 Housing/
A<:cornmodGono

00 444440

- ...
Oilier CM1

~

---PRISONER PETnlONS
0510_ .. _
- .. carp..; 0530 0535 Dollll Pltnolly 0540-&0IIw 0550C..

FORFEITURE IPEHALTY

610 AQI'icullure

0 620 Olher Food & Drug

0

625

Drug ~ltd Property 21

Suesizcu8re81ol

0 630 \.4Xlr laM

0 640 R.R & Truck

0 650 Airlne Revl

0660~
Saety/Hellllh

690 Olher

LABOR

0 710 Fair Ubo< SlandArdo
Ad
0 720 Ubor/Mgml. ~
0 730 Ulbor/Mgml.
Reporling' Oilclooure Ad 0 740 "-lwey Ubor Ad 0 790 Ol>er Ubor U!galion
0 791 Emp. A.!. n:.
SecurlyAd

IIAHKRUPTCY

usc 0422~

211

151

0

4

2211 3us-c

-
157

PROPERTY RIGHTS

0820~
0830.._ 0840.._

SOCIAL SECURITY
0 861 HIA (13851) 0 862 ll!llockl..ung (923) 0 863 DIWCIDIWW'(~g)l 0 164 SSIO Tolo XVI 0 865 RSI (~g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS
0 170 . _ (U.S. Ploinlitl orDtl-..q
0 171 IRS- Third Parly
211USC7sot

VI. ORIGIN
~ 1 Original
Proceeding

0 2 Removed from State Coun

(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY)

Translened from

0 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 another district

Appeaate Coun

Reopened

(specify)

0 6 Mullidistrict Utigalion

STATIITfS

0 400 St.s.

0

Reopporlio """'~
41 0 Anlitrull

0 0

443500

-

and Banl<ing

Commerce/ICC Rates/etc.

0 460 Doportation

0 470 Rad<etHF lnlluenced and eom.pc Or;anizatiOOI

0 810 Seleclive Service

0 850 S.CUritieo/Com..-.;.1

E>cNngo

0

875

c12:uusc.

- Challenge
3410

0 891 Agriallural Ado

0 892 Economic: Slabrlution

Ad

.

0 893 ErMrOIV1'1efUI MIIIOf'l 0 894 EM<gy ~Ad 0195F.-ol
lrlonnalion Ad
0 900 AWealoiFeeDetermination
~ Ec;auW ...,_. ID
0950~1yol
-sw. SlaiUiel
0 890 ()Chef Slatuory
-Appeal to District

0 7 Judge from

Magistrate

Judgment

VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTlON

COMPLAINT:

0 UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND$

Check YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: Jfl YES o NO

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions>:

IF ANY

-

JUDGE - - - - - - - - - - - D O C K E T NUMBEn...__ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

 
 Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 02-22912 CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON

c FILED
DKTG

I7U

D

--- '

•

. . . a t·t: ~- 6 cr..-.--.,J.

UMTEDSTATESEQUALE~LOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
XIOMARA GUERRERO, OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ, JORGE FIOL, ERNESTO HEDMAN, HILARIO PINEDA, JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ, ALEXIS SILVA
Intervenor Plaintiffs, INTERVENOR COMPLAINT
V.
AIRGUIDE CORPORATION, PIONEER METALS, INC. and
GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.
Defendants. I

Intervenor Plaintiffs, XIOMARA GUERRERO, OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ, JORGE FIOL, ERNESTO HEDMA.c1>.J:, HILARlO PINEDA, JU•.<\N CARLOS SUAREZ, and ALEXIS SILVA, in the abov~ styled action, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 24 and 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f)l) state their complaint of intervention as follows:

8a_,ned lm~~ge • 1:02CV22it2 DoGurnent 22 p-s~ell Tu. Feb 04 00:00:00 2003

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 2 of 15
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 760.01-.11, Fla. Stat. Section 448.102 et seq. and state common law to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to XIOMARA GUERRERO, OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ, JORGE FIOL, ERNESTO HEDMAN, HILARIO PINEDA, JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ and ALEXIS SILVA who were adversely affected by such practices. XIOMARA GUERRERO, OFELIA.. RODRIGUEZ and MARJBEL SUAREZ allege that they were sexually harassed at Defendants' place of business in Miami, Florida, when they were forced to endure unwelcome sexual comments because of their sex, female. The harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to create a hostile and intimidating work environment. XIOMARA GUERRERO, OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ, JORGE FIOL, ERNESTO HEDMAN, HILARIO PINEDA, JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ and ALEXIS SILVA allege that they were retaliated against by Defendants for engaging in protected activity. Further, Defendant Employers' retaliatory conduct created serious material changes in the terms and conditions ofPlaintiffs' employment rendering their working conditions so intolerable such that MARIBEL SUAREZ was forced to resign. XIOMARA GUERRERO,
2
BcMn«<lm-ve · 1:02CV22112 Document 22 p-a• 6 Tu• Feb 0-4 00:00:00 2003

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 3 of 15
HILARIO PINEDA, JORGE FIOL, JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ and ERNESTO HEDMAN were terminated. Plaintiffs were subjected to repeated retaliatory acts when they advised the company of certain supervisory employees' discriminatory practices as against themselves and others, voiced concern and opposition to such discriminatory conduct and ongoing retaliatory practices and/or provided a statement and cooperated with an EEOC investigation in support of complaints of discrimination.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345 and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(£)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-S(f)(l) and (3)("Tit1e VII") and Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. Section l981A. Damage and declaratory relief is also sought pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 760.01.11, Fla. Stat. Section 448.102 and state common law. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.
3
Sc•ned lm-ee · 1:02CV22912 Dooum.,t 22 P-st~• 7 Tu. Feb 04 00:00:00 .zoos

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 4 of 15
PARTIES 3. Intervenor Plaintiffs, XIOMARA GUERRERO, MARIBEL SUAREZ
and OFELIA RODRIGUEZ are residents of Miami-Dade County, Florida. They were individually subjected to the acts of sexual harassment and retaliation complained of herein because they are female and/or because they complained about sexual harassment and retaliation. They were also subjected to retaliatory action because they participated, assisted and/or served as a witness on behalf of other employees during an investigation conducted by the EEOC. 4. Intervenor Plaintiffs, JORGE FIOL, ERNESTO HEDMAN, HILARIO PINEDA, JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ AND ALEXIS SILVA are residents of Miami-Dade County, Florida. They were individually subjected to the acts complained of herein because they complained about discriminatory employment practices and/or participated, assisted and/or served as a witness on behalf of other employees during an investigation conducted by the EEOC. 5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Airguide Corporation ("Airguide"), has continuously been a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Miami, and has
4
lclll"'ned lm• · 1:02CV.22t12 Dooument Z2 p~~ge I Tu• Feb 04 00:00:00 2003

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 5 of 15
continuously had at least 15 employees and/or has been an employer within the meaning of Florida Statute Section 448.101 (3). 6. At all times, Defendant Pioneer Metals, Inc. ("Pioneer''), has continuosly been a Florida corporation doing business in the state of Florida and the City of Miami, and has continuously had at least 15 employees and/or has been an employer within the meaning of Florida Statute Section 448.101(3). 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Goodman Global Holdings, Inc. ("Goodman"), has continuously been a Texas corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Miami, and has continuously had at least 15 employees and/or has been an employer within the meaning of Florida Statute Section 448.101 (3 ). 8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, intervenor Plaintiffs each filed charges with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employers. On information and belief, pursuant to a workshare agreement, said charges were forwarded by EEOC to the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR") and filed with FCHR. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative measures and fully complied with all prerequisites to jurisdiction in this Court under Title VII and Florida Statutes Section 760.01-.11.
5
8c.,ned lm-ae • 1:02CV22112 Docum•nt 22 p-.;~el Tue Feb G4 00:00:00 200.S

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 6 of 15
COMMON ALLEGATIONS 9. Since on or about April 2000 Defendants Airguide, Pioneer and
Goodman (collectively "Employers") have engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Miami, Florida, facility, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 760.1 0(7) and Florida Statutes Section 448.102.
COUNT I-SEXUAL HARASSMENT (Fla. Stat. Section 760.1 0)
10. OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ, and XIOMARA GUERRERO, were regularly subjected to sexual harassment by their supervisor, Mario Arispe, in the form of unwelcome verbal comments and gestures which were sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an offensive work environment.
11. The harassment included, but was not limited to, frequent, sexual advances, derogatory sexual slurs and comments and other unwelcome abusive acts and conduct directed at OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ, and XIOMARA GUERRERO because of their sex, and/or for complaining about sexual harassment and/or for asserting their right to work free from sexual discrimination.
12. Defendants knew or should have known that its supervisory employee, Mario Arispe, harassed OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ, and XIOMARA GUERRERO. Even after Defendants were advised of
6
8c..,ned lm-ee • 1:02CV22912 Oocurnenl22 PIICI• 10 Tue Feb 04 00:00:00 lOGS

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 7 of 15
the ongoing harassment, OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ, and XIOMARA GUERRERO were maintained in a position such that they were under the daily supervision and control of Mario Arispe and further subjected to harassment and retaliatory acts. 13. Defendants failed to take prompt remedial action to remedy the sexual harassment, failed to adequately give notice of federal, state and local laws against sexual harassment and retaliation, failed to adequately promulgate, circulate and implement policies against sexual harassment. Defendants created and/or allowed to be created a condition which encouraged and did not deter Mario Arispe from sexually harassing and/or retaliating against OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, M.o\RIBEL SUAREZ, and XIO:MARA GUERRERO or promptly remedy said misconduct. 14. Defendant Employers are liable for the unlawful sexual harassment to which they subjected OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ and XIOMARA GUERRERO. 15. The effect of the Defendants' discriminatory practices have been to deprive XIOMARA GUERRERO, OFELIA RODRIGUEZ and MARIBEL SUAREZ of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees on the basis of sex.
7
Sowu...d lm.- ·1:0l<:Vl211l DocumWJt 22 P-.:11• 11 Tue feb 04 00:00:00 1003

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 8 of 15
COUNT II-RETALIATION
(Fla. Stat. Section 760.1 0)
16. Defendant Employers unlawfully retaliated against XIOMARA
GUERRERO, OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ, HILARIO PINEDA, JORGE FIOL, JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ, ALEXIS SILVA and ERNESTO HEDMAN for engaging in protected activity. Specifically, Defendant Employers retaliated against these individuals after they complained to management about what they reasonably believed to be unlawful employment practices; participated in the EEOC's investigation; and/or filed a charge with the Commission. Defendant's unlawful conduct included the following:
a. Defendant Employers disciplined, suspended and terminated HILARIO PINEDA.
b. Defendant Employers terminated mAN CARLOS SUAREZ. c. Defendant Employers disciplined, demoted, suspended and
terminated JORGE FIOL. d. Defendant Employers disciplined and harassed MARIBEL
SUAREZ. e. Defendant Employers disciplined, harassed and terminated
XIOMARA GUERRERO.
8
Sc.nned lrn-a• · 1:02CVU912 Document 22 p~~ge12 Tue Fllb 04 00:00:00 2003

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 9 of 15
f. Defendant Employers disciplined, demoted and terminated ERNESTO HEDMAN.
g. Defendant Employers demoted ALEXIS SILVA. h. Defendant Employers disciplined and harassed OFELIA
RODRIGUEZ. I7. The effect of the Defendants' discriminatory practices have been to
deprive XIOMARA GUERRERO, OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ, JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ, HILARIO PfNEDA, ERNESTO
HEDM.-\N, ALEXIS SILVA and JORGE FIOL of equal employment
opportunity and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees on the basis of retaliation. 18. The unlawful employment practices were intentional and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the protected rights of XIOMARA GUERRERO, OFELIA RODRJGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ, JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ, HILARIO PINEDA, ERNESTO HEDMAN, ALEXIS SILVA and JORGE FIOL. COUNT III-FLORIDA'S WHISTLE-BLOWER ACT \10LATION
(Florida Statutes Section 448.102) 19. Intervenor Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 9 through 18 as if fully set forth herein.
9
8c.nned lm-ee • 1:02CVUI12 Document 12 p-ve 13 T~ F.tJ OA 00:00:00 2003

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 10 of 15
20. Defendant Employers unlawfully took retaliatory personnel action against XIOMAR:\ GUERRERO, OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ, JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ, HILARIO PINEDA, ERNESTO HEDMAN, ALEXIS SILVA and JORGE FIOL for:
a. disclosing to an appropriate governmental agency an activity or practice of the Defendant Employers that is in violation of law,
b. providing information to, or testifying before, an appropriate governmental agency conducting an investigation into an alleged violation of law by the Defendant employers; and/or
c. objecting to an activity, policy or practice of the Defendant Employers which is in violation of law. 21. Specifically, Defendant Employers took retaliatory personnel action against XIOMARA GUERRERO, OFELIA RODRIGUEZ, MARIBEL SUAREZ, JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ, HILARIO PINEDA, ERNESTO HEDMAN, ALEXIS SILVA and JORGE FIOL after they advised Defendants of ongoing discriminatory practices and voiced opposition to what they reasonably believed to be discriminatory practices, participated, assisted and/or served as witnesses on behalf of employees during an investigation conducted by the EEOC. Defendant Employers' retaliatory personnel actions against plaintiffs were:
10

p-. k.nMCI lm~~ge ·1:0lCVl2t12 Docum.m 22

141..,. hb 04 00:00:00 2003

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 11 of 15
a. Defendant Employers disciplined, suspended and terminated HILARIO PINEDA.
b. Defendant Employers terminated illAN CARLOS SUAREZ. c. Defendant Employers disciplined, demoted, suspended and
terminated JORGE FIOL. d. Defendant Employers disciplined and harassed MARJBEL
SUAREZ.
e. Defendant Employers disciplined and terminated XI OMARA
GUERRERO. f. Defendant Employers disciplined, demoted and terminated
ERNESTO HEDMAN. g. Defendant Employers disciplined and demoted ALEXIS SILVA. h. Defendant Employers disciplined harassed OFELIA
RODRJGUEZ. 22. The effect of the practices described above in paragraphs _ _and above was to adversely affect plaintiffs' status as employees in violation of Florida Statute Section 448.102.
II
Sc.nned lm9 · 1:02CVUI12 Docurnenl 22 peg• tl Tu• Feb 04 00:00:00 2003

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 12 of 15
COUNT IV (NEGLIGENT TRAINING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION)
23. Intervenor Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 3 through 18 as if fully set forth herein. 24. At all times material hereto, Defendants were made aware by Plaintiffs that supervisory personnel had received complaints of discriminatory practices and ignored such complaints. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs advised Defendants that supervisory personnel within the company were retaliating against those employees who had complained of discrimination. In fact~ Defendants were made aware by Juan Plaintiffs that discriminatory practices were ongoing and that supervisory personnel were responsible for perpetrating acts of retaliation. With such knowledge, Defendants nevertheless retained the supervisory personnel and failed to supervise and instruct/train its personnel regarding anti-discrimination and retaliation solely served to perpetuate and encourage the discriminatory acts.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, intervenor plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court: A. Order Defendant Employers to make Plaintiffs whole by providing
appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate
12
Sunned lm.g~~ · 1:02CV221U Oocum•nt 22 p-ee 16 Tue Feb 04 00:00:00 200:S

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 13 of 15
the effects of their unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to, reinstatement, job search expenses and/or front pay. B. Order Defendant Employers to make Plaintiffs whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including but not limited to, medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial. C. Order Defendant Employers to make plaintiffs whole by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. D. Order Defendant Employers to pay Plaintiffs punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employers, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in unlawful retaliation or any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of retaliation.
13
ScMned Im-ae · 1:02CY22912 Document .U P-.:11• 17 Tue Feb 04 00:00:00 2003

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 14 of 15
F. Order reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights under Florida Statute Section 448.103.
G. Order Defendant Employers to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all of their employees regardless of having engaged in a protected activity, which eradicate the effects oftheir past and present unlawful employment practices.
H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
I. Award the plaintiffs is costs and attorney's fees in bringing this law·suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 2000(e)-5(k) and/or 42 U.S.C. Section 1998 and/or Florida Statute Section 760 et seq. and Florida Statute Section 448.104.
J. Enter Judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Plaintiffs requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
14
Sc.nMd 1m•- 1:02CY22912 Docum.nt 22 p~ 11 Tue Feb 04 00:00:00 2003

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2003 Page 15 of 15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO INTERVENE was served, by U.S. Mail this~ay of January, 2003, to Cheryl Cooper, Esq., United States Equal Opportunity Commission, One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700, Two South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida, 33131 and W. Russell Hamilton, III, Esq., Morgan Lewis, & Bockius, LLP, First Union Financial Center, 200 South
Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300, Miami, FL 33131-2310.

Dat-e- d:-~~

Respectfully Submitted,

arcia-Perez, Esq. . 0894280
Attorney for applicants for intervention
2151 LeJeune Rd., Suite 204 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel. (305) 446-2311 Fax. (305) 446-2774

15

p.- Sc.nn.dlm.-- 1:02CV22112 Document 22

1' Tue f.tl 04 00:00:00 2003

 
 Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2003 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON Consolidated with
CASE NO. 02-23544-LENARD/SIMONTON

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

XIOMARA GUERRERO; OFELIA RODRIGUEZ; MARIBEL SUAREZ; JORGE FIOL; ERNESTO HEDMAN; HILARIO PINEDA; JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ; and ALEXIS SILVA,
Intervenor-Plaintiffs, vs.

.·. Q~ 1LLv,

U.C.

. I
·- ,"(
,,..r.
------·

AIRGUIDE CORPORATION; PIONEER METALS, INC. and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC,

Defendants. JUAN SANCHEZ,

- -I

Plaintiff, vs.

AIRGUIDE CORPORATION; PIONEER METALS, INC. and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC,

Defendants. ______________________!

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2003 Page 2 of 5
ORDER CLARIFYING SCOPE OF CONSOLIDATION THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' request for clarification of the scope of consolidation ofCase Nos. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON and 02-23 544CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON, set forth in its Request for Status Conference, filed March 10, 2003. (D.E. 38.) The Court held a status conference held on May 7, 2003, and Defendants argued that the Court should place the individual Sanchez case on a faster track for trial than the EEOC case. The Court provided Defendants ten days in which to submit a legal memorandum in support of their position. (D.E. 49.) On May 19,2003, Defendants filed a "Submission Regarding Jury Confusion and Prejudicial Impact of Proposed Consolidation for Pre-Trial and Trial." (D.E. 50.) Plaintiff Juan Sanchez filed a Memorandum in Opposition on May 29, 2003 (D.E. 51), and Plaintiff EEOC filed a Memorandum in Opposition on June 9, 2003 (D.E. 53). Having considered the parties' submissions and the relevant portions of the record in this matter, the Court finds as follows. The Complaint filed by the EEOC on September 30, 2002, Case No. 02-22912-CIVLENARD/SIMONTON, alleges that Defendants committed various acts of employment discrimination, including sexual harassment against certain employees and retaliation against other employees who complained ofthe sexual harassment. On December 13,2002, Plaintiff Juan Sanchez file a Complaint in Case No. 02-23544-CIV-GRAHAM/GARBER, alleging that the same Defendants retaliated against him for various acts, including his participation
-2-
I

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2003 Page 3 of 5
in the EEOC investigation that resulted in the filing of the first case. On January 22, 2003, the undersigned judge accepted transfer of the Sanchez case and consolidated it with the EEOC case. On March 10, 2003, Defendants filed a Request for Status Conference, to clarify the scope of consolidation and resolve a dispute regarding pre-trial deadlines. The Court held a status conference, at which defense counsel was unprepared with any legal authority to support Defendants' position. The Court granted Defendants ten days within which to submit a memorandum and any case law supporting their position that consolidation would result in jury confusion and/or undue prejudice.
Upon review of the parties' submissions, the Court finds that consolidation is appropriate in this case, because it serves the interest of justice and expedient judicial administration without causing undue prejudice to any party. Rule 42(a) provides that:
When actions involving a common question oflaw or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all 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.P.42(a). Plaintiffs EEOC and Sanchez and the Intervenor-Plaintiffs all argue that consolidation of these cases is appropriate under Rule 42(a), and Defendants have pointed to no legal authority persuading the Court otherwise. The binding law of this Circuit counsels that: 'In this Circuit, district judges have been urged to make good usc of Rule 42(a) in order to expedite the trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and
-3-
I
;

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2003 Page 4 of 5
confusion' ..... Rule 42(a) 'is permissive and vests a purely discretionary power in the district court.' An exercise of such power may be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment or order but will not be disturbed except for abuse of discretion. In re Air Crash Disaster at Fla. Everglades on Dec. 29. 1972, 549 F.2d 1006, I013 (5th Cir. 1977) 1 (internal citations omitted). Moreover, "a court may order the consolidation ofcases despite the opposition of the parties." ld. In this case, where Plaintiff Sanchez alleges retaliation arising out of the originallyfiled EEOC case and many of the same legal and factual issues are expected to arise in both cases, the Court finds that separate proceedings would cause unnecessary duplication of judicial resources, to an extent that outweighs any prejudice to Defendants that might be caused by proceeding in one consolidated case. In addition, the Court will be able to mitigate any jury confusion through the use of limiting instructions. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-styled cases are CONSOLIDATED for all purposes, including trial.
1 In the case of Bonner v. Prichard. 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.l981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the fonner Fifth Circuit handed down prior to close ofbusiness on September 30, 1981.
-4-

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2003 Page 5 of 5

t=r DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this day ofJune, 2003.

Cc:

U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton

All counsel of record

J~E~~~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-

 
 Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2003 Page 1 of 8
D.C.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
V CASE NO. 02·22912..CIV·LENARD/SIMONTON
Consolidated with CASE NO. 02·23544-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON

Cl/\h~ .• .-.t h ..... ~,\JUX
CLEfL U.S. u;sr. CT.
<;. 0. OF FLA.

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
XIOMARA GUERRERO; OFELIA RODRIGUEZ; MARIBEL SUAREZ; JORGE FIOL; ERNESTO HEDMAN; HILARIO PINEDA; JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ; and ALEXIS SILVA,
Intervenor Plaintiffs,
v.
AIRGUIDE CORPORATION, PIONEER METALS, INC., and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
----------------------------·'
JUAN SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
AIRGUIDE CORPORATION, PIONEER METALS, INC., and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants.
----------------------------·'
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL MORE COMPLETE INITIAL DISCLOSURES
Presently pending before this Court Is Defendants' Motion To Compel More

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2003 Page 2 of 8
Complete Initial Disclosures (DE# 59, filed 7/7/03). This motion is referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge (DE## 11, 19, 28). The motion is fully briefed (DE## 65, 66, 67, 70).
I. The Complaint The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereafter EEOC), Intervenor Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Sanchez have brought these consolidated actions alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment and/or retaliation for engaging in protected activities, and related state law claims (DE## 1, 30). II. The Instant Motion A. Defendants' Position Defendants ask this Court to compel all Plaintiffs to provide a more complete initial disclosure of damages computations and to award Defendant the attorney's fees and costs they Incurred In making this motion. Defendants contend that in their various March 31, 2003 initial disclosures, all Plaintiffs listed the only the general categories of damages which they sought, and provided no computation at all of the dollar amounts of those damages, In violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(c). Defendants contend that all Plaintiffs had a duty to provide computations of damages in their initial disclosures (DE # 59). In their replies, Defendants specified the categories of damages to which they believe they were entitled to In the Initial disclosures: the estimated dollar value of each Plaintiff's wages and compensation earned at Airguide; their interim earnings after their employment with Alrgulde; and any out-of-pocket medical expenses they Incurred which may be attributed to Defendants (DE ## 67, 70). Defendants assert that all Plaintiffs have the information necessary to compute damages, and that because Plaintiffs may amend
2

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2003 Page 3 of 8
their disclosures at any time, a lack of certainty provides no excuse for their noncompliance (DE # 59).
Defendants further state that their motion was timely under the Local Rules because the thirty day time period in Local Rule 26.1 H. never began to run because during the time the EEOC sent its April 16, 2003 letter and the time Defendants filed the instant motion, Defendants were waiting for the EEOC to supplement its initial disclosures as promised in the letter. Defendants also note that Local Rule 26.1 H. allows the court discretion to permit a late-filed motion for reasonable cause shown, with the reasonable cause being that Defendants waited eleven weeks to see if the EEOC would supplement its Initial Disclosure as promised in its letter. Defendants also state that the good faith conference requirement of Local Rule 26.1 I was satisfied by Defendants' April 10, 2003 letter to the EEOC requesting supplementation of the initial disclosures (DE # 70).
B. Plaintiffs' Positions 1. The EEOC's Position The EEOC responds that the motion should be denied as Defendants failed to make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute before filing the Instant motion, in violation of Local Rule 26.1.1, and then filed the instant motion more than thirty days after the grounds for the motion arose, In violation of Local Rule 26.1 H. 1. The EEOC states that Defendants' only effort to resolve the dispute was a letter dated April 10, 2003, to which the EEOC responded within six days, and that Defendants never made any further attempt to discuss the matter, but then waited for more than eleven weeks before filing the Instant motion. The EEOC also states that It has complied with the Initial disclosure
3

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2003 Page 4 of 8
requirements regarding compensatory and punitive damages, and that it cannot compute the damages it is seeking with regard to back pay and rightful-place promotion damages until Defendants provide the EEOC with relevant information. The EEOC also contends that Defendants' initial disclosure was inadequate. The EEOC also asks that Defendants' request for an award of sanctions be denied (DE # 66).
2. The Position of Plaintiff Sanchez and the Intervenor Plaintiffs Plaintiff Sanchez and the Intervenor Plaintiffs respond that they made their initial disclosures based upon the information available to them at that time. They note that Defendants did not produce any documents in their initial response until May 6, 2003, and have objected on work product grounds to producing the complete personnel file of Plaintiff Sanchez. All Plaintiffs state that they will supplement their initial disclosures with damages computations as they obtain the necessary information (DE# 65). Ill. Analysis A. The Motion Is Denied As Untimely Filed Initially, the instant motion is denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 26.1 H.1. Defendants did not have reasonable cause for filing this motion ninety-eight days after the occurrence of the grounds for the motion. On March 31, 2003, the EEOC served its initial disclosures on Defendants (Ex. A to DE # 59). On March 31, 2003, Plaintiff Sanchez and the Intervenor Plaintiffs served their initial disclosures on Defendants (Ex. B to DE # 59). On April 10, 2003, Defendants sent a letter to the EEOC (Ex. E to DE # 59), requesting computation of the dollar amount of each category of damages the respective Plaintiffs sought from Defendants. On April 16, 2003, the EEOC sent a letter to
4

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2003 Page 5 of 8
Defendants stating that it did not agree that the damages portion of its Initial Disclosures was deficient, that it did not at that time have accurate data to compute damages, and invited Defendants' counsel to contact EEOC counsel to further discuss resolving the issues without the need for motion practice (Ex. G to DE# 59).
On April 10, 2003, Defendants sent a letter to Plaintiff Sanchez and the Intervenor Plaintiffs (Ex. C to DE # 59), requesting computation of the dollar amount of each category of damages the respective Plaintiffs sought from Defendants. On May 23, 2003, Defendants sent a similar letter to Plaintiff Sanchez and the Intervenor Plaintiffs, stating that Defendants had not received any response from them and if Defendants did not hear from them by May 27,2003, Defendants would file a Motion to Compel (Ex. D to DE# 59). On May 30, 2003, counsel for Plaintiff Sanchez and the Intervenor Plaintiffs served a letter on Defendants stating that they did not have sufficient information to make a complete and accurate calculation of damages (Ex. F to DE # 59).
The motion is denied because it was filed more than thirty days after the occurrence of the grounds for the motion, in violation of Local Rule 26.1 H.1. The initial disclosures at Issue were filed on March 31, 2003. On April 16, 2003, the EEOC responded to Defendants' letter, stating that they did not agree with Defendants' position and that their disclosures as to damages were complete. The undersigned finds that the occurrence of the grounds for the motion was on March 31, 2003, when Defendants received the Initial disclosures. The Local Rule gave Defendants here thirty days to confer with Plaintiffs, and then file a motion to compel if they so chose. Therefore, the instant motion, filed more than three months later, was untimely filed.
Even If the occurrence for the grounds for the motion was April 16, 2003, when the
5

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2003 Page 6 of 8
EEOC responded to Defendants' April 10, 2003 letter, the motion was still untimely filed, as Defendants waited almost three months to file it.
Similarly, the undersigned finds that the occurrence of the grounds for the motion as to Plaintiff Sanchez and the Intervenor Plaintiffs was on March 31, 2003, when Defendants received the initial disclosures. Therefore, the instant motion, filed more than three months later, was untimely filed.
Again, even if the occurrence for the grounds for the motion was May 30, 2003, when Plaintiff Sanchez and the Intervenor Plaintiffs responded to Defendants' April 10, 2003 and May 23, 2003 letters, stating that they did not agree with Defendants' position and that their disclosures as to damages were complete, the instant motion was still untimely filed, as Defendants waited almost thirty-eight days to file it.
Defendants' argument that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the motion because they were waiting for all Plaintiffs to supplement their initial disclosures is disingenuous, and is rejected. Adopting Defendants' position would make the Local Rule's thirty-day time period open-ended.1
B. Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures Were Sufficient Furthermore, the motion is denied because all Plaintiffs' damage computations In their initial disclosures were sufficient, based upon the information in their possession. All Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of Rule 26(a)(1 )(C) In the damage computations contained In their Initial disclosures. In its initial disclosure, the EEOC provided Defendants with the range of dollar amounts which It Is seeking for
11n light of this ruling, there Is no need to reach Plaintiff EEOC's argument that the motion should be dented for violating Local Rule 26.1 I.
6

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2003 Page 7 of 8
Plaintiffs' non-economic compensatory damages, depending on the amount of employees which it is determined that Defendants employ. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not have to provide in their initial disclosures any more detail concerning non-pecuniary damages than they provided. See Williams v. Trader Pub. Co., 218 F.3d 481, 486 (5th Cir. 2000); Burrell v. Crown Cent. Petroleum, Inc., 177 F.R.D. 376, 386 (E.D. Tex. 1997).
Plaintiffs also correctly stated that they were not in possession of the information necessary to make back pay computations, and that they will supplement their initial disclosures when they receive the information. Plaintiff EEOC has stated the method by which it will make these computations, and is simply waiting to receive from Defendants the information necessary to make these computations. Defendants have not successfully refuted that Plaintiffs are not in possession of the wage, benefit and other employee compensation records necessary to accurately compute Plaintiffs' back pay claims in this litigation.
It is disingenuous for Defendants to state, in a conclusory fashion, that they have been prejudiced by all Plaintiffs' failure to provide a complete damages computation in their initial disclosures, and that Plaintiffs are the only persons with access to this information (DE## 67, 70). Defendants have access to much, if not all of the information necessary to make the damage computations requested.
Defendants' reliance on Viveros v. Nationwide Janitorial Association, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 681 (N.D. Ga. 2000), Is misplaced. In Viveros, the District Court found that "Plaintiffs should be able to make a good faith estimate of damages and methods of calculations based on the Information they have available." /d. at 683. Here, the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs have provided their methods of calculation to
7

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2003 Page 8 of 8

Defendants, and also finds that Plaintiffs are not able to make a good faith estimate of damages based on the information which they have available. Therefore, Defendants' motion to compel is denied. Plaintiffs are reminded of their continuing duty to supplement as to their damages computations as relevant information becomes available.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion To Compel More

Complete Initial Disclosures (DE# 59, filed 7/7/03), is DENIED.

this~ DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida,

day of September, 2003.

~/Jl~
ANDREA M. SIMONTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: The Honorable Joan A. Lenard
United States District Judge Cheryl A. Cooper, Esq.
2 South Biscayne Blvd 2700 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-2483 Facsimile # (305)536-4494 (Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC) Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez, Esq. 2151 Le Jeune Road, Suite 204 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Facsimile# (305)446-2774 (Attorney for Intervenor Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Sanchez)

W. Russell Hamilton, Ill, Esq. Angel Castillo, Jr., Esq. Raquel Elejabarrieta, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 5300 Wachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2339 Facsimile # (877)432-9652 (Attorney for Defendants)

8

 
 r \.
Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2003 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON ./ Consolidated with
CASE NO. 02-23544-LENARD/SIMONTON

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff(s),

! LDby~ D.C.

XIOMARA GUERRERO; OFELIA RODRIGUEZ; MARIBEL SUAREZ; JORGE FIOL; ERNESTO HEDMAN; HILARIO PINEDA; JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ; and ALEXIS SILVA,

DEC 2 2 2003

"

r ~. ·~ u...>L)X

' ' ~·· 'J ::,. DIST· CT.

. OF FLA. · MIAMI

Intervenor Plaintiffs,

vs.

AIRGUIDE CORPORATION; PIONEER METALS, INC. and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC,

Defendant{ s).

JUAN SANCHEZ,
vs.
AIRGUIDE CORPORATION; PIONEER METALS, INC. and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC,
Defendant(s).

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF CLAIMS BY PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR ALEXIS SILVA
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Intervenor Plaintiff Alexis Silva's and Defendants Airguide Corporation's, Pioneer Metals, Inc.'s, and Goodman Global Holdings, Inc.'s (collectively, "Defendants"), Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice of all claims by Alexis Silva, and the Court being fully advised, it is hereby,

• Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2003 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all of Intervenor Plaintiff Alexis Silva's claims against Defendants asserted in the above-styled action are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party is to bear its own costs and attorney's and expert witness fees. This dismissal does not affect any claims that other Plaintiffs in this matter may have against the Defendants. All pending motions
~A_((...
with regard to Plaintiff Intervenor Alexis Silva/DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this~ day of December, 2003.
Copies furnished to: Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton all counsel of record
-2-

 
 Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2003 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, and JUAN SANCHEZ,

Plaintiffs,

XIOMARA GUERRERO; OFELIA RODRIGUEZ; MARIBEL SUAREZ; JORGE FIOL; ERNESTO HEDMAN; HILARIO PINEDA; JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ; and ALEXIS SILVA,

CL/.. · I

,I .;,;,'i

. . c: r. !_E. r:'' !J • 3. l.i I;) ,·, -~ s . .). u...: r:LA . ~------=

Intervenor Plaintiffs,

v.

AIRGUIDE CORPORATION, PIONEER METALS, INC., and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendants.
------------------------------~'
ORDER GRANTING, BY DEFAULT, DEFENDANT AIRGUIDE'S MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF AUTHORIZATIONS

Presently pending before the Court is Defendant Airguide Corporation's Motion To Compel Execution of Authorizations (DE# 77, filed 11/26/03). All discovery motions in

this case are referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge (DE## 11, 19, 28).

The respondents, Plaintiff Juan Sanchez and Intervenor Plaintiffs Guerrero,

Maribel Suarez, Fiol, Hedman, Pineda and Juan Carlos Suarez, have not filed a response to the motion. The last day to timely serve a response was December 15, 2003. Therefore, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 C, Defendant Airguide's motion is granted by

default. On or before January 9, 2004, Plaintiff Juan Sanchez and Intervenor Plaintiffs

Guerrero, Maribel Suarez, Fiol, Hedman, Pineda and Juan Carlos Suarez must provide

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2003 Page 2 of 2

Defendant Airguide with signed authorizations to obtain copies of their unemployment compensation files from the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation.
Under the circumstances of this case, it would be unjust to grant Defendant Airguide's request for the expenses and fees it incurred in connection with this motion.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Airguide Corporation's Motion To

Compel Execution of Authorizations (DE# 77, filed 11/26/03), is GRANTED by default,

as stated in the body of the Order. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Airguide's request for the

expenses and fees it incurred in connection with this motion (DE# 77, filed 11/26/03), is

DENIED.

,r-tf_

2J DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this

day of December, 2003.

Copies furnished to: The Honorable Joan A Lenard
United States District Judge W. Russell Hamilton, Esq. Angel Castillo, Jr., Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 5300 Wachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2339 Facsimile # (877)432-9652 (Attorney for Defendants) Carla Von Greiff, Esq. 501 E. Polk Street Tampa, FL 33602 Facsimile # (813)228-2045 (Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC)

bfik & chi/Jl~
I ANDREA M. SIMONTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Cheryl A Cooper, Esq. 2 South Biscayne Blvd 2700 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-2483 Facsimile # (305)536-4494 (Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC)
Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez, Esq. 2151 Le Jeune Road, Suite 204 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Facsimile# (305)446-2774 (Attorney for Intervenor Plaintiffs and
Plaintiff Sanchez)

2

 
 Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL

Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2004 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

----.·-0 ~.-iLlJ L;y-
~

... ...-I
D.C.~

~

~
;1

tA~~ 2 6 '.~ ,,

';[i!lf
1,..,.- •'

l1

~

( r_, :--

~ ~) i) .\

~

.:::..~:;~ .. li.S. l11._~f. CT.

S.D. OF cL.;.

CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, and JUAN SANCHEZ,

Plaintiffs,

XIOMARA GUERRERO; OFELIA RODRIGUEZ; MARIBEL SUAREZ; JORGE FIOL; ERNESTO HEDMAN; HILARIO PINEDA; JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ; and ALEXIS SILVA,

Intervenor Plaintiffs,
v.

AIRGUIDE CORPORATION, PIONEER METALS, INC., and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendants.
----------------------------~'
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Presently pending before this Court is Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez, Esq.'s (hereafter

Garcia-Perez), Emergency Motion For Protective Order and Motion To Quash Subpoena

(DE # 78, filed 12/2/03). All discovery motions in this case are referred to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge (DE ## 11, 19, 28). The motion is fully briefed (DE ## 85,

88, 89). On January 23, 2004, a hearing was held on the motion.1 All oral rulings made at

the hearing are incorporated in this Order. For the reasons stated at the hearing and

1 After the hearing, and with the Court's permission, Defendants filed with the Court the complete transcripts of the depositions of Plaintiffs Pineda and Guerrero (DE # 93).

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2004 Page 2 of 13
below, the motion for protective order is granted and the subpoena for the deposition of Garcia-Perez is quashed.
I. The Complaint The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereafter EEOC), Intervenor Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Sanchez have brought these consolidated actions alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment and/or retaliation for engaging in protected activities, and related state law claims (DE ## 1, 30). II. The Instant Motion A. Movant's Position Garcia-Perez, counsel for Intervenor Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Sanchez, moves for a protective order regarding her deposition set by Defendants and asks this Court to quash the subpoena for her deposition. Garcia-Perez states that Defendants' counsel has stated he wishes to depose her to clarify alleged inconsistencies between statements made by Intervenor Plaintiff Hilario Pineda at his deposition, and prior statements made through Garcia-Perez to the EEOC during the investigation of Pineda's charge. Garcia-Perez states that she has no personal knowledge concerning the communications between Pineda and Defendants which are the subject of the alleged inconsistencies, and that Garcia-Perez made the statements to the EEOC regarding said communications as Pineda's agent for the purposes of the investigation. Garcia-Perez asserts that any communications between Pineda and Garcia-Perez regarding those communications are protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, and that the notice of deposition was merely an attempt to harass counsel and the Intervenor Plaintiffs. Garcia-Perez further states that Defendants would be able to use any
2

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2004 Page 3 of 13
inconsistencies between Pineda's position as set forth to the EEOC and Pineda's deposition testimony at trial on cross-examination of Pineda. Garcia-Perez notes that depositions of attorneys are disfavored (DE ## 78, 88).
B. Defendants' Position Defendants assert that three of Garcia-Perez' statements of fact to the EEOC in the May 8, 2002 Jetter are demonstrably false: that Pineda had to drive Intervenor Plaintiff Guerrero to Guerrero's August 2001 unemployment appeal hearing because Guerrero did not have a driver's license; that a representative of Airguide told Pineda that if he did not immediately leave the hearing that he would be fired; and that Pineda was fired because of his anticipated testimony at the hearing. Defendants then assert that given the inaccuracy of the foregoing statements, it is highly questionable whether the representations made to the EEOC regarding the statements allegedly made to Garcia· Perez personally at the August 2001 hearing by an attorney representing Airguide are entirely accurate. Defendants contend that only sworn deposition testimony from Garcia-Perez can serve to enable Airguide to establish the truth of the allegations she made to the EEOC during the EEOC's internal investigation. Defendants state that at trial, they will have to call Garcia-Perez as a fact witness to impeach the credibility of both Pineda and Guerrero, because the representations made to the EEOC by GarciaPerez are inconsistent with the facts disclosed during discovery. Defendants state that Garcia-Perez should appear for deposition and assert any privilege only with respect to any particular questions posed. Defendants also state that there is no blanket prohibition from deposing an attorney, and that Garcia-Perez has not shown good cause for the issuance of a protective order (DE # 85).
3

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2004 Page 4 of 13
Ill. The Relevant Facts 1. Garcia-Perez's May 8, 2002 letter to the EEOC Garcia-Perez's May 8, 2002 letter to the EEOC stated, in pertinent part, that Pineda had had to drive Guerrero to the unemployment hearing because she is not licensed to drive by herself and she is taking anti-depressant medication (prescribed as a result of the alleged sexual harassment) (emphasis added). In the letter, Garcia-Perez also stated that before the hearing began, Defendant Airguide's attorney, Mr. Barnum, asked GarciaPerez whether Pineda was going to testify, and Garcia-Perez then responded that she was not sure. Barnum then said Pineda had to return to work and could not be at the hearing. The letter then stated that immediately afterwards, Santiago Zamudio took Pineda aside and said that he had to leave immediately or he would be fired, and that the warning issued on that day was in retaliation for anticipated testimony by Pineda at the hearing (Ex. B to DE # 78). 2. Pineda's Deposition Testimony At his November 13, 2003 deposition, Pineda testified that he drove Guerrero to her August 27, 2001 unemployment hearing because while she had a driver's license, it was his car and he had not included Guerrero on the insurance. Pineda further testified that he stayed with her at the hearing because she was very nervous and upset and she didn't want to stay alone (DE # 89 at 184-85, DE # 93, Pineda deposition at 205-08). Pineda stated that Guerrero was not under a doctor's care that day, but it had been recommended that she see a psychiatrist, and that he did not remember if Guerrero was on medication that day (DE # 89 at 184-85). Pineda testified that he was not going to be a witness at the hearing (DE # 89 at 184). Pineda also testified that Airguide representative
4

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2004 Page 5 of 13
Santiago Zamudio told Pineda at the hearing, in the presence of Jose Velazquez, another Airguide representative, that it was a problem for human resources that Pineda was at the hearing, and that after Pineda explained that Guerrero was upset and could not drive, that he had called work and that he would return to work immediately after the hearing, Zamudio told Pineda that if Pineda testified at the hearing, he would give Pineda a warning (DE# 89 at 193-94, 198). Pineda also testified that he told Zamudio that Guerrero did not drive, that she could only drive for a few blocks near their home, and that she did not know about direction, and that she was sick, nervous, and upset (DE# 89 at 199). Pineda testified that Zamudio did not tell him that he had to leave immediately or be fired (DE# 89 at 197). When Pineda arrived at Airguide later that day, after the conclusion of the hearing, he was suspended, and he was fired the following day (DE # 189 at 178).
3. Defendants' November 14, 2003 Letter to Garcia-Perez Defendants' counsel sent a letter, dated November 14, 2003, stating the basis for the deposition to Garcia-Perez. In the letter, Defendants' counsel states that in the May 8, 2002 letter to the EEOC, Garcia-Perez stated that in connection with an unemployment compensation appeal proceeding held in downtown Miami on August 27, 2001, Pineda had to drive Intervenor Plaintiff Xiomara Guerrero (his then common-law wife and now legal wife) to the hearing because Guerrero was not licensed to drive by herself, but that Pineda testified at his deposition that that was not true. Defendants' counsel also stated that on that date Guerrero had an unrestricted driver's license. Defendants' counsel further stated that in the May 8, 2002 letter, Garcia-Perez stated that during the unemployment proceeding, Santiago Zamudio told Pineda that he had to leave
5

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2004 Page 6 of 13
immediately or he would be fired, and that Pineda testified at his deposition that Zamudio never said that to him. Finally Defendants' counsel states that in the letter, Garcia-Perez stated that an attorney representing Airguide, Eric Barnum, at the hearing took Garcia· Perez aside and asked if Pineda was going to testify, and that Garcia-Perez indicated that she was not sure, and that Barnum then said Pineda had to return to work and could not be at the hearing (Ex. B to DE # 78).
IV. Analysis Garcia-Perez's motion for a protective order and to quash the subpoena for her deposition is granted. Defendants have not made a sufficient showing to warrant the disfavored deposition of Plaintiffs' attorney. Depositions of attorneys inherently constitute an invitation to harass the attorney and parties and to disrupt and delay the case. Moreover, deposing an attorney adds costs to litigation, places burdens upon attorneys, and threatens the attorney-client relationship. These presumptions may constitute good cause for obtaining a protective order, and the party seeking the deposition has the burden of overcoming these presumptions by showing the propriety and the need for the deposition. Courts should exercise great care before permitting the deposition of an attorney. The party seeking an attorney's deposition must demonstrate that the deposition is the only practical means of obtaining the information, and must show that the information sought will not invade the realm of the attorney's work product or any attorney-client privilege. Finally, the information sought must be relevant and its need must outweigh the danger of deposing a party's attorney. West Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach County, 132 F.R.D. 301, 302 (S.D. Fla. 1990) citing N.F.A. Corp. v. Riverview Narrow Fabrics, Inc., 117 F.R.D. 83, 85
6

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2004 Page 7 of 13
(M.D.N.C. 1987) and Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986).
A. The Deposition of Garcia-Perez Would Invade The Attorney-Client Privilege Here, Defendants seek to depose Garcia-Perez to ascertain what her client, Pineda, told her about this case. This information goes to the heart of the attorney-client privilege. Defendants have not established that these attorney-client conversations are not privileged.2 B. Pineda's Deposition Testimony Does Not Contradict The Letter To The EEOC Moreover, the information sought is not particularly relevant, as Pineda's deposition testimony does not significantly contradict Garcia-Perez's statements in the letter to the EEOC. 1. Pineda's Statement About Why He Drove Guerrero To The Hearing Garcia-Perez's May 8, 2002 letter to the EEOC stated in pertinent part that Pineda had to drive Guerrero to the August 27, 2001 unemployment hearing because she was not licensed to drive by herself and she was taking anti-depressant medication which was prescribed as a result of the alleged sexual harassment.3 At his November 13, 2003 deposition, Pineda testified that he drove Guerrero to her August 27, 2001 unemployment hearing because while Guerrero had a driver's
2 The undersigned also notes that Defendants' counsel did not attempt to impeach Pineda at his deposition with the May 8, 2002 letter and did not ask Pineda at his deposition what information he had provided to Garcia-Perez to transmit to the EEOC in the May 8, 2002 letter. 3 In her deposition, Guerrero testified that after she was fired from Airguide she was prescribed pills for depression (DE # 93, Guerrero deposition at 40). Guerrero was not questioned at her deposition concerning whether she was taking anti-depressant medication on August 27, 2001.
7

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2004 Page 8 of 13
license, it was his car, he and Guerrero lived together, and he had not included Guerrero on the insurance, and because the night before the hearing, Guerrero started to become very nervous and upset in anticipation of the hearing. Pineda further testified that he stayed with her at the hearing because she was very nervous and upset and she didn't want to stay alone (DE # 89 at 184-85, DE # 93, Pineda deposition at 205-08). Pineda stated that Guerrero was not under a doctor's care that day, but it had been recommended that she see a psychiatrist, and that he did not remember if Guerrero was on medication that day (DE # 89 at 184-85). Pineda also testified that he told Zamudio, Airguide's representative, that Guerrero did not drive, that she could only drive for a few blocks near their home, that she did not know about direction, and that she was sick, nervous, and upset (DE # 89 at 199).
In the November 14, 2003 letter, Defendants' counsel asserted that in the May 8, 2002 letter to the EEOC, Garcia-Perez stated that in connection with an unemployment compensation appeal proceeding held in downtown Miami on August 27, 2001, Pineda had to drive Intervenor Plaintiff Xiomara Guerrero (his then common-law wife and now legal wife) to the hearing because Guerrero was not licensed to drive by herself, but that Pineda testified at his deposition that that was not true. Defendants' counsel also stated that on that date Guerrero had an unrestricted driver's license.
Pineda's deposition testimony does not conflict with Garcia-Perez's statements to the EEOC in any significant way. Garcia-Perez stated that Guerrero did not have a driver's license. While Guerrero did have a driver's license at the day of the hearing, Pineda testified that he drove Guerrero to the hearing because she did not drive, except for a few blocks near her home, and because Guerrero was sick, nervous and upset.
8

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2004 Page 9 of 13
Pineda also testified that it was his car, and Guerrero was not included in the insurance. Garcia-Perez stated to the EEOC that Guerrero did not drive herself because she was taking anti-depressants. Pineda testified that he did not know whether Guerrero was on medication that day or subsequently. At Guerrero's deposition, Defendants did not ask her why she did not drive herself to the hearing or whether she was taking antidepressant medication on the day of the hearing. Thus, Defendants have not shown how the information which they would seek to obtain from Garcia-Perez on this issue to use solely for the impeachment of Pineda at trial is necessary and would outweigh the disadvantages inherent in deposing Garcia-Perez.
2. What Zamudio Said To Pineda At The Hearing In Garcia-Perez's May 8, 2002 letter to the EEOC, Garcia-Perez stated that at the hearing, Airguide's representative Zamudio took Pineda aside and said that he had to leave immediately or he would be fired (Ex. B to DE # 78). At his deposition, Pineda testified that Airguide representative Santiago Zamudio told Pineda at the hearing, in the presence of Jose Velazquez, another Airguide representative, that it was a problem for human resources that Pineda was at the hearing. After Pineda explained that Guerrero was upset and could not drive, that he had called work and that he had would return to work immediately after the hearing, Zamudio told Pineda that if Pineda testified at the hearing, he would give Pineda a warning (DE # 89 at 193-94, 198). Pineda testified that Zamudio did not tell him that he had to leave immediately or be fired (DE# 89 at 197). When Pineda arrived at Airguide later that day, after the conclusion of the hearing, he was suspended, and he was fired the following day (DE # 189 at 178).
9

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2004 Page 10 of 13
Defendants' counsel said in the November 14, 2003 letter, that while in the May 8, 2002 letter, Garcia-Perez stated that during the unemployment proceeding, Zamudio told Pineda that he had to leave immediately or he would be fired, Pineda testified at his deposition that Zamudio never said that to him.
Again, while Pineda's testimony does not exactly match what Garcia-Perez told the EEOC, it is similar, especially when taken in context. Pineda was told that his presence at the hearing was a problem for Airguide and that if he testified at the hearing he would be given a warning. While he did not testify at the hearing, he was given a warning when he returned to work after the hearing later that morning. Thus, Defendants have not shown how Garcia-Perez's testimony is necessary and outweighs the disadvantages inherent in deposing Garcia-Perez.
3. Why Pineda Was Suspended When He Returned From The Hearing In Garcia-Perez's May 8, 2002 Jetter to the EEOC, Garcia-Perez stated that the warning issued by Defendant Airguide to Pineda on that day was in retaliation for anticipated testimony by Pineda at the hearing (Ex. 8 to DE # 78). At his deposition, Pineda testified that Airguide representative Santiago Zamudio told Pineda at the hearing, in the presence of Jose Velazquez, another Airguide representative, that it was a problem for human resources that Pineda was at the hearing. After Pineda explained that Guerrero was upset and could not drive, that he had notified work of his absence and that he had would return to work immediately after the hearing, Zamudio told Pineda that if Pineda testified at the hearing, he would give Pineda a warning (DE # 89 at 193-94, 198). Pineda also testified that he was not going to be a witness at the hearing (DE# 89 at 184). When Pineda arrived at Airguide later that day,
10

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2004 Page 11 of 13
after the conclusion of the hearing, he was suspended, and he was fired the following day (DE # 189 at 178).
Garcia-Perez's statement to the EEOC that the warning issued by Defendant Airguide to Pineda on the day of the hearing was in retaliation for anticipated testimony by Pineda at the hearing is a reasonable inference from Pineda's deposition testimony. Pineda was told that his presence at the hearing was a problem for Airguide, he was told by Airguide's representative that if he testified he would receive a warning, and Airguide's counsel, when told that Garcia-Perez did not know if Pineda would be a witness at the hearing, told Garcia-Perez that Pineda had to return to work and could not be at the hearing. Thus, Defendants have not shown how Garcia-Perez's testimony is necessary and outweighs the disadvantages inherent in deposing Garcia-Perez.
4. The Conversation At The August 2001 Hearing Between Airguide's Counsel and Garcia-Perez In the May 8, 2002 letter, Garcia-Perez stated that before the hearing began, Defendant Airguide's attorney, Mr. Barnum, asked Garcia-Perez whether Pineda was going to testify, and Garcia-Perez then responded that she was not sure. Barnum then said Pineda had to return to work and could not be at the hearing. In the November 2003 letter, Defendants' counsel states that in her May 2002 letter, Garcia-Perez stated that an attorney representing Airguide, Eric Barnum, at the hearing took Garcia-Perez aside and asked if Pineda was going to testify, and that Garcia-Perez indicated that she was not sure, and that Barnum then said Pineda had to return to work and could not be at the hearing (Ex. B to DE # 78). Defendants have not put forth any evidence indicating that this statement by
11

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2004 Page 12 of 13
Garcia-Perez is not truthful, or indicated how this fact is relevant to the case.4 GarciaPerez represented at the hearing that she does not intend to testify at trial to this fact. Thus, Defendants have not shown how Garcia-Perez's deposition testimony on this issue is necessary and outweighs the disadvantages inherent in deposing Garcia-Perez.
In conclusion, the undersigned notes that the determination that none of the alleged inconsistencies, either standing alone or taken together, are sufficient to warrant a deposition of Plaintiffs' counsel is supported by the fact that the deposition testimony of Pineda is less favorable to him than the prior representations made by counsel. Indeed, at the hearing, Defendant's counsel conceded that Pineda's deposition testimony was more favorable to Defendants than the representations which Garcia-Perez made to the EEOC on Pineda's behalf in the May 8, 2002 letter. Thus, this is not a situation where a party has made inconsistent statements which are significantly more favorable to the position of that party in the litigation. Furthermore, at the hearing, Garcia-Perez confirmed that she does not intend to testify as a witness for Plaintiffs at the trial.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez, Esq.'s Emergency
4The undersigned notes that while Defendants state that Garcia-Perez's version of the conversation with Barnum is not worthy of belief, Defendants have not proffered an affidavit from Barnum which controverts Garcia-Perez's account of the conversation.
12

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2004 Page 13 of 13

Motion For Protective Order and Motion To Quash Subpoena (DE# 78, filed 12/2/03), is

GRANTED.

.zh~ay DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this

of January, 2004.

~/Zl~ ANDREA M. SIMONTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: The Honorable Joan A. Lenard
United States District Judge W. Russell Hamilton, Esq. Angel Castillo, Jr., Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 5300 Wachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2339 Facsimile # (877)432-9652 (Attorney for Defendants) Carla Von Greiff, Es~. 501 E. Polk Street Tampa, FL 33602 Facsimile # (813)228-2045 (Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC) Cheryl A. Cooper, Es~. 2 South Biscayne Blvd 2700 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-2483 Facsimile # (305)536-4494 (Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC) Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez, EsG~. 2151 Le Jeune Road, Suite 204 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Facsimile# (305)446-2774 (Attorney for Intervenor Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Sanchez)

13

 
 Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL

·:-~- -;---~--;---:::-, Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2004 Page 1 of 2

! - _, ' ~ - _.....,. ·- r

• • ..J-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

,I
1-.:~
CCLELR.\,R\ >Ur:.SE. lDlllIASOT.DOCXT.
L~......;s~-o;.;..-.oF_..FL..,.A.--:~

CASE NO. 02-22912-CIY-LENARD/SIMONTON

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

and

XJOMARA GUERRERO, eta/.,

Intervenor Plaintiffs,

v.

AIRGUIDE CORPORATION, eta!.,

___________D_ef_e_n_da_n_ts_.____________/

JUAN SANCHEZ, Plaintiff,
V.
AIRGUIDE CORPORATION, et al.,
___________D_ef_e_n_da_n_ts_.____________/

ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY DOUG MARTY'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
The Court having considered Non-Party Doug Marty's Unopposed Motion for Protective
Order and Motion to Quash Subpoena, and for good cause shown, said Motion is hereby

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2004 Page 2 of 2

GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Mr. Marty's deposition be rescheduled from April 8,

2004 to May 6, 2004.

Apu/ , 7'/Zt SO ORDERED this

day of

2004.

~g_~,(
HONORABLE ANDREA M. SIMONTON
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

6
ATI 32190568.1 I 37248-000002

 
 Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2004 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON

0 7 ll...2 •"1'

,(-,-nL,1nL'l

CLE R,·' IJ. S. DIS r. CT.
·~ _ S.D. OF FLA.

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, and JUAN SANCHEZ,

Plaintiffs,

XIOMARA GUERRERO; OFELIA RODRIGUEZ; MARIBEL SUAREZ; JORGE FIOL; ERNESTO HEDMAN; HILARIO PINEDA; JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ; and ALEXIS SILVA,

Intervenor Plaintiffs,

v.

AIRGUIDE CORPORATION, PIONEER METALS, INC., and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendants.
----------------------------~'
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Presently pending before this Court is Intervenor Plaintiff Hilario Pineda's and

Plaintiff Juan Sanchez' Motion For Protective Order and To Quash Subpoena (DE# 100,

filed 3/1/04). All discovery motions in this case are referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge (DE ## 11, 19, 28). The motion is fully briefed (DE ## 105, 109). For the

reasons stated below, the motion for protective order is granted and the subpoenas to

creditors of Pineda and Sanchez are quashed.

I. The Complaint

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereafter EEOC), Intervenor

Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Sanchez have brought these consolidated actions alleging hostile

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2004 Page 2 of 5
work environment sexual harassment and/or retaliation for engaging in protected
activities, and related state law claims (DE ## 1, 30).
II. The Instant Motion A. Movant's Position Pineda and Sanchez state that Defendants have noticed their intent to serve subpoenas on numerous creditors of Pineda and Sanchez for 1) all written applications or other documents declaring current income and creditworthiness submitted by Pineda and Sanchez and 2) all monthly statements submitted to Pineda and Sanchez showing charges or debits on any account numbers for the 12 months prior to February 3, 2000. Pineda and Sanchez move for a protective order and to quash the subpoenas on the grounds that these subpoenas are overbroad, and intrusive as to Pineda and Sanchez's private financial affairs unrelated to this case; and that the information sought is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Pineda and Sanchez note that Defendants have received copious discovery concerning their wages and financial situations. Pineda and Sanchez also contend that Defendants are seeking the information solely to harass, annoy and embarrass them, and that the subpoenas have imposed an undue expense of time and money on all
parties (DE # 100). Pineda and Sanchez also state that Defendants are not seeking to
discover whether Pineda and Sanchez have lied about a material issue to the litigation, but rather whether Pineda and Sanchez have lied about their credit history, and that Defendants have not shown how this related to the claims asserted by Plaintiffs or to the
defenses asserted by Defendants (DE # 109).
2

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2004 Page 3 of 5
B. Defendants' Position Defendants assert that they have issued a number of subpoenas duces tecum to various nonparty credit agencies seeking copies of Pineda and Sanchez's applications and spending statements for credit cards Pineda and Sanchez possessed prior to or at the time they each filed for bankruptcy in 2000 {Pineda) and 2001 {Sanchez). Defendants contend that the subpoenas seek relevant information, reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence that could eventually be used by Defendants to impeach the truthfulness of Pineda and Sanchez. Defendant seeks to ascertain whether Pineda and Sanchez told the truth at their depositions regarding their credit card debt, the representation of their income and creditworthiness given to creditors, and their bankruptcy filings. Defendants state that the subpoenas are not overbroad, that they do not present an undue expense of time and money to Pineda and Sanchez, and that Pineda and Sanchez have no personal right and confidence to the subpoenaed materials (DE# 105). Ill. Analysis Pineda and Sanchez's motion for a protective order and to quash the subpoenas to their creditors is granted. Defendants have not made a sufficient showing of relevance to defeat Pineda and Sanchez's motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26{b) states, in pertinent part, that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Defendants have not shown how the materials requested in the subpoenas are either relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
3

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2004 Page 4 of 5
Whether Pineda and Sanchez lied at their depositions about their credit card debt, the representation of their income and creditworthiness given to creditors, and their bankruptcy filings, is of minimal, if any relevance to the issues in this case, i.e. whether Defendants engaged in hostile work environment sexual harassment against Plaintiffs and/or retaliation against Plaintiffs for engaging in protected activities. This having been said, extrinsic evidence concerning Pineda and Sanchez's credit card debt, the representation of their income and creditworthiness given to creditors, and their bankruptcy filings, appear to be of no relevance to the issues raised in this case. Defendants have not shown how any evidence obtained through the subpoenas would be admissible at trial. See F.R.Evid. 608(b). Nor have Defendants shown either how any evidence obtained through the subpoenas is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or what admissible evidence they expect the subpoenaed evidence to lead to. Although a witness may be cross-examined concerning prior untruthful statements, in the case at bar, Defendants have not provided any basis for their belief that Pineda and Sanchez have lied, nor any specific question or statement which they believe is false. Defendants have not controverted Plaintiffs' assertions that Defendants have received copious information concerning their finances, including the public records of their bankruptcy proceedings. If Defendants had advanced some plausible basis for their speculation that Plaintiffs had lied, their argument for discovery would stand on firmer ground. However, based upon the record before this Court, it appears that Defendants are proceeding on a fishing expedition calculated to embarrass and annoy Pineda and Sanchez with respect to otherwise private financial information, and therefore, Pineda and Sanchez are entitled to protection.
4

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2004 Page 5 of 5

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Intervenor Plaintiff Hilario Pineda's and

Plaintiff Juan Sanchez' Motion For Protective Order and To Quash Subpoena {DE# 100,

filed 3/1/04), is GRANTED.

2fh DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this

day of April, 2004.

~$~ ANDREA M. SIMONTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: The Honorable Joan A. Lenard
United States District Judge W. Russell Hamilton, Esq. Angel Castillo, Jr., Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 5300 Wachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131·2339 Facsimile # (877)432-9652 (Attorney for Defendants) Carla Von Greiff, Esq. 501 E. Polk Street Tampa, FL 33602 Facsimile # (813)228-2045 (Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC) Cheryl A. Cooper, Esq. 2 South Biscayne Blvd 2700 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-2483 Facsimile # (305)536-4494 (Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC) Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez, Esq. 2151 LeJeune Road, Suite 204 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Facsimile# {305)446-2774 (Attorney for Intervenor Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Sanchez)

5

 
 Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and
XIOMARA GUERRERO, eta/.,
Intervenor Plaintiffs,
v.

~9 FILED by

D.C.

JUN 14 2004

CLARENCE MADDOX CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. S••• OF FLA. • MIAMI

AIRGUIDE CORPORATION, et al.,

_______________D__ef_e_n_da_n_ts_._______/

JUAN SANCHEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
AIRGUIDE CORPORATION, eta!.,
_______________D__ef_e_n_da_n_ts_._______/

CONSENT DECREE 1. This Consent Decree (the "Decree") is made and entered into by and between Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission" or "EEOC"), Plaintiff-Intervenors Jorge Fiol ("Mr. Fiol"), Ernesto Hedman ("Mr. Hedman"), Juan Carlos Suarez ("Mr. Suarez"), Hilario Pineda ("Mr. Pineda"), Xiomara Guerrero ("Ms. Guerrero"), Maribel Suarez ("Ms. Suarez"), Ofelia Rodriguez ("Ms. Rodriguez")

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 2 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
(collectively "Plaintiff-Intervenors") and Defendants, Airguide Corporation ("Airguide") and Pioneer Metals, Inc. ("PMI") (hereinafter collectively "Airguide/PMI" or "Defendants"). The Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenors, and Defendants are collectively referred to herein as "the Parties."
2. On September 30, 2002, EEOC initiated this action by filing its Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, Civil Action No. 02-22912-CN, based upon charges filed by Jorge Fiol (Charge No. 150 A2 00251); Emesto Hedman (Charge No. 150 A2 00303); Juan Carlos Suarez (Charge No. 150 A1 0766); Hilario Pineda (Charge No. I50 AI 3038); Xiomara Guerrero (Charge Nos. 150 A1 1599 and I50 AI 1044) Maribel Suarez (Charge No. 150 Al 1045); and Ofelia Rodriguez (Charge No. 150 A1 1046)(collectively the "Charges"). EEOC's Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, including but not limited to, amendments authorized by the Civil Rights Act of I99I, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") by subjecting Ms. Guerrero, Ms. Suarez and Ms. Rodriguez to unlawful sexual harassment at their place of business in Miami, Florida. EEOC's Complaint further alleges that Mr. Fiol, Mr. Hedman, Mr. Suarez, Mr. Pineda, Ms. Guerrero, and Ms. Suarez, were retaliated against by Defendants for engaging in protected activity. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants retaliated against these individuals after they complained to management about what they reasonably believed to be unlawful employment practices; participated in the EEOC's investigation; and/or filed a charge with the Commission by subjecting them to discipline, suspension, discharge and/or constructive discharge. Subsequent to EEOC filing its Complaint
2

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 3 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
in this action, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed a motion to intervene, which was granted by the Court on February 6, 2003. Plaintiff-Intervenors' Complaint alleges the same Title VII violations as Plaintiff EEOC's Complaint as well as violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act of I992 ("FCRA").
3. In the interests of resolving this matter, to avoid the costs of litigation, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Decree. This Decree is final and binding upon the Parties, their successors and assigns.
4. The Parties agree that this Decree resolves all claims alleged against the Defendants, and others against which the claims alleged could have been made, in EEOC Charge Numbers: I50 A2 0025I and I50 AI 0708 (Mr. Fiol); I50 A2 00303 and I50 AI 0703 (Mr. Hedman);I50 AI 0766 (Mr. Suarez); 150 AI 3038 (Mr. Pineda); I50 AI I599 and I 50 AI I044 (Ms. Guerrero); 150 A1 1045 (Ms. Suarez); and 150 A1 1046 and 150 A2 03333 (Ms. Rodriguez), and the Complaints filed in this action, and constitutes a complete resolution of all claims that were or could have been made by the Commission and/or Plaintiff-Intervenors in this action against Defendants and any others against which such claims could have been brought.
5. This Decree will be effective as to the Plaintiff-Intervenors to fully and finally resolve all the claims referenced in paragraph 4, herein, without their individual signatures based on the execution of this Decree by their counsel representing her certification as to the agreement of each of the Intervenor-Plaintiffs.
3

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 4 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
6. Nothing in this Decree or the agreements represented by this Decree shall be construed as or deemed to be an admission or concession by or on the part of any of the Defendants of any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever in connection with the claims in the underlying civil action, or in any other litigation matter, and the Defendants expressly deny and disclaim any such liability or wrongdoing
7. NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the pleadings filed by the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
JURJSDICTION 8. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and over the Parties for the purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree. 9. No party shall contest the jurisdiction of this federal court to enforce this Decree and its terms or the right of the EEOC to seek enforcement in the event Defendants breach any of the terms of this Decree.
GENERAL PROVISIONS 10. Airguide/PMI, their officers, and employees, agree to not engage in conduct which violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by adversely affecting the terms and conditions of any individual's employment by subjecting an individual to sexual harassment. Provided, however: (A) Only the Commission shall have authority to seek the judicial enforcement of this provision of the Decree; and
4

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 5 of 21

CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
(B) Only as to alleged acts of sexual harassment the notice of which is served on Defendants under paragraph 24(A) below within the time established by Section 706(a)(l) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1), for the timely filing for a charge of discrimination under Title VII.
11. Airguide/PMI, their officers, and employees, agree to not retaliate against any employee for filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violation(s) of Federal anti-discrimination laws; who cooperates with the EEOC in the investigation and/or prosecution of any charge of discrimination; or who cooperated in the investigation or prosecution of this case. Provided, however:
(A) Only the Commission shall have authority to seek the judicial enforcement of this provision ofthe Decree; and
(B) Only as to alleged acts of retaliation the notice of which is served on Defendants under paragraph 24(A) below within the time established by Section 706(a)(l) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l), for the timely filing for a charge of discrimination under Title VII.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY AND TRAINING 12. PMI has established a written policy against sexual harassment and retaliation, which is attached as Exhibit A. PMI agrees that during the term of this Decree all of the employees and managers at the PMI locations throughout the state ofFlorida11 will be provided a complete copy of this policy against sexual harassment and retaliation within thirty (30) days of

11

For the purpose of this Consent Decree, PMI locations throughout the state of Florida shall be: Miami;

Fort Lauderdale; West Palm Beach; Fort Myers; Orlando; Tampa; Melbourne; Tallahassee; Sarasota;

Naples; Clearwater; Ocala; Daytona; New Port Richey; Panama City; Winter Haven; Kendall; Jacksonville;

Fort Pierce.

5

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 6 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
the entry of this Decree. PMI also agrees that all new employees of PMI throughout the state of Florida shall be given a copy of this policy against sexual harassment and retaliation within their first week of employment with PMI.
13. To further ensure the effective implementation of PMI's anti-harassment and retaliation policy, PMI will conduct a two (2) hour training for all of PMI's managers and supervisory personnel throughout the state of Florida on discrimination with specific emphasis on recognizing sexual harassment, on acts that could constitute retaliation, on the proper procedure to be followed if they become aware of sexual harassment in the workplace or if they receive complaints of retaliation, and on the proper retention of documents related to discrimination complaints. PMI agrees to provide the EEOC, at least two (2) weeks notice before it conducts the training session(s), with the date(s) and location(s) of the training, the identification of the training materials to be used at the training session, and a general description of the category of employees who will be in attendance at the training. The initial training will be conducted by Morgan Lewis Resources, or by another entity mutually agreed upon by PMI and the EEOC. Additionally, PMI agrees that the EEOC shall, at the EEOC's discretion, be in attendance at each training session(s) as observers.
14. PMI agrees that the training described in paragraph 13 shall be conducted within six (6) months of the entry of this Decree, and thereafter one (1) hour training sessions shall be implemented annually during the term of this Decree. PMI further agrees that the discrimination policy and training materials utilized for the training described in paragraph 13 shall be presented to and explained to all new PMI managers and supervisors throughout Florida who did not attend
6

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 7 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
the annual training, within thirty (30) days of being placed in a management or supervisory position. This annual training shall be conducted by the entity conducting the initial training, or by another individual or entity with expertise in conducting training on workplace antidiscrimination laws.
15. PMI agrees that the President of PMI will personally meet with Santiago Zamudio, PMI's Human Resource Manager, to counsel him on the importance of adhering to federal anti-discrimination laws as well as the company's written policies against harassment and retaliation. PMI further agrees that Mr. Zamudio will take a one-half day training within ninety (90) days of the Court's entry of this Decree on complying with federal anti-discrimination laws enforced by the EEOC. Notations shall be entered in Mr. Zamudio's personnel file substantiating PMI's President's meeting with Mr. Zamudio as well as Mr. Zamudio's attendance at the anti-discrimination training.
EXPUNGEMENTOFENTRIESFROMPERSONNELRECORDS 16. Airguide/PMI agree to remove from their records and files (and specifically from the personnel files) ofMr. Fiol, Mr. Hedman, Mr. Suarez, Mr. Pineda, Ms. Guerrero, Ms. Suarez, and Ms. Rodriguez unsatisfactory personnel entries, including disciplinary warnings and termination reports, within twenty-one (21) days of the entry of this Decree. Airguide/PMI also agree to provide neutral letters of references for Mr. Fiol, Mr. Hedman, Mr. Suarez, Mr. Pineda, Ms. Guerrero, Ms. Suarez, and Ms. Rodriguez as set forth in Exhibit C. Airguide/PMI further agree that in response to future inquiries made or referred to its employee relations department by prospective employers of Mr. Fiol, Mr. Hedman, Mr. Suarez, Mr. Pineda, Ms. Guerrero, Ms.
7

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 8 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
Suarez, and Ms. Rodriguez, they will explain that consistent with Airguide/PMI policies they may only provide the dates of their employment with Airguide, position(s) held and confirm wage/salary information.
POSTING 17. PMI will post a laminated 8-112 x 11 copy of the Notice, attached as Exhibit B, no later than thirty (30) days of the entry of this Decree. Said notice shall be posted at all ofPMI's facilities throughout the State ofFlorida for the duration of this Decree in a conspicuous location accessible to all employees such as an employee bulletin board and/or break/lunch room.
MONITORING 18. PMI will retain all employment and/or investigative records relating in any way to any complaint or allegation of harassment and/or retaliation by Florida employees for the duration ofthis Decree and as required under federal law. 19. Airguide/PMI will certify to the EEOC annually throughout the duration of this Decree that they are in compliance with all aspects of this Decree. The first such certification will be due no later than thirty (30) days from completion of the training set forth in paragraph 13, or February 1, 2005, which ever is later. Thereafter, each certification shall be submitted annually by January 1Oth throughout the duration of the Decree. A fourth and final certification will be due thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of this Decree. With each certification Airguide/PMI will provide the EEOC with the last known name, address, and phone number of any PMI employee who alleges to her/his Department Manager/Superintendent, Department Vice President, the Human Resources Manager or hotline they have been sexually harassed or retaliated against for activity protected under Title VII while working for PMI during the
8

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 9 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
preceding twelve month period. Airguide/PMI will also state the actions taken in response to each such allegation and provide any and all documentation associated with such complaint.
MONETARY RELIEF 20. Defendants agree to pay a total amount of $1,000,000.00 to resolve this litigation with the EEOC and Plaintiff-Intervenors. The monies shall be distributed as set forth in Exhibit D. 21. All payments set forth in Exhibit D attached hereto shall be mailed within fortyfive (45) calendar days from the execution of this Decree. Airguide/PMI agree to simultaneously provide the EEOC with a copy of the payments by forwarding same to the attention of Carla Von Greiff, EEOC Senior Trial Attorney, at the Tampa Area Office of the EEOC, 501 East Polk Street, Suite 1000, Tampa, Florida, 33602. 22. If Airguide/PMI fail to tender the above-mentioned payments within the period set forth in paragraph 21, Defendants shall pay interest on the defaulted payment at the rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6621(b) until the same is paid.
ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE 23. The Commission shall have independent authority to seek the judicial enforcement of any aspect, term or provision of this Decree. 24. Should a dispute of any nature whatsoever arise concerning the compliance by any entity with the terms of this Decree, or concerning the interpretation, applicability or coverage of this Decree, such dispute shall be resolved exclusively and mandatorily in the following manner:
9

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 10 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
(A) The party, person or entity asserting the claimed violation or raising the question of interpretation or applicability shall serve written notice of such assertion promptly, but in no event later than thirty (30) days after the circumstances giving rise to the claim or question of interpretation or applicability have occurred, upon the Commission and upon counsel for the Defendants and Plaintiff-Intervenors at the addresses listed below;
(B) The Commission and counsel for the Defendants, with the participation of the party, person or entity raising the issue, if appropriate, shall promptly, and in no event later than thirty (30) days after receiving the aforementioned notice, discuss the matter and attempt to reach a resolution;
(C) If no resolution is reached within thirty (30) days, the matter may be submitted to the Court by any of the Parties for final and binding resolution through a procedure to be established by the Court.
25. If any provision of this Decree is found to be unlawful, only the specific provision in question shall be affected and the other provisions will remain in full force and effect.
26. If this proposed Decree is not approved by the Court in substantially the form submitted by the Parties and the Parties do not mutually agree to the changes required by the Court for approval, the agreements expressed in this Decree shall be terminated, be deemed null and void, and have no further force or effect.
27. The undersigned counsel for the Parties agree to use their best efforts to effectuate the judicial approval of this Decree.
10

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 11 of 21

CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON

28. This Decree constitutes the entire agreement and commitment of the Parties. Any

modifications to any agreement contained in this Decree must be mutually agreed upon and

memorialized in writing signed by each of the Parties affected by the modification.

29. The Parties agree to file a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice following the

Court's approval ofthis Decree (but with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce this Decree).

COSTS 30. Each party shall bear his/her/its own costs associated with this litigation.

DURATION OF DECREE 31. This Decree shall remain in effect for three (3) years from the date of the Court's

execution of the Decree.

AGREED TO:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF,

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

by: ~!IRJ."!L~u.<.D--,.

Date: June 8, 2004

Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esquire

Regional Attorney

Miami District Office

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700

2 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: 305.530.6116

Facsimile: 305.536.4494

11

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 12 of 21

AGREED TO: FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON

Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors The Law Offices of Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez 2151 LeJeune Road, Suite 204 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Telephone: 305.446.2311 Facsimile: 305.446.2774

AGREED TO: FOR THE DEFENDANTS, AIRGUIDE CORPORATION and PIONEER MET..,.,..._.~

W. Russell Hamilton, III, Esquire Florida Bar No. 199540 Angel Castillo, Jr., Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Attorneys for Airguide Corporation and Pioneer Metals, Inc. 5300 Wachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2339 Telephone: 305.415.3440 eFacsimile: 1.877.432.9652

Date: June 8, 2004

.l.f: SO ORDERE~, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this

day o~

2004~ ~·J~ I

cc: Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esquire (via fax 305.536.4494) Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez, Esquire (viafax 305.446.2774) W. Russell Hamilton, III, Esquire (viafax 1.877.432.9652)
12

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 13 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
EXHIBIT "A" PIONEER METALS, INC.
--EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY-The Company is built upon teamwork and equal opportunity and is committed to continuin2 its program ofnondiscrimination. The Company provides equal employment opportunity to all employees and applicants regardless of a person's race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin, disability, veteran status, or any other legally protected status. This policy applies to all conditions of employment including, but not limited to, recruitment, selection, placement, transfer, promotion, training, compensation, benefits, and termination. All decisions regarding conditions of employment will be based on the individual's overall qualifications and his or her ability to meet the requirements of the position. The Company will comply with all federal and state regulations and statutes pertaining to individuals with disabilities. It is the responsibility of management to practice fair employment with each employee at all times in his or her respective work areas. Any violations of Equal Employment Opportunity Policy by anyone must be reported immediately to management. Further, all supervisory personnel will be responsible for maintaining an environment that is free of racial or sexual overtones. The Company will cooperate with federal, state or local government agencies that have the responsibility to monitor or enforce compliance with various laws relating to employment. The Company will furnish such reports, records and other matters as requested in order to foster the program of equal opportunity for all persons, regardless of race, creed, religion, color, sex, age, national origin, disabled or Vietnam Era veteran status, or physical or mental disability according to the policies stated in the previous paragraphs. Management has the overall responsibility of carrying out the company's Equal Employment Opportunity Policy in their respective work areas.
COMPLAINT & PROBLEM RESOLUTION PROCEDURE The Company has an OPEN DOOR policy to handle complaints and problems.
13

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 14 of 21

CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
If you have a complaint or problem, you should first discuss the situation with your immediate Supervisor. Most things can be resolved at this level.
However, if you feel uncomfortable discussing the matter with your Supervisor, or your Supervisor is not available or you are not satisfied with the response from your Supervisor, you are encouraged to discuss the matter with your Department Manager/Superintendent or Department Vice President. You may also contact Human Resources.
Your complaint or problem will be given serious attention and attempts will be made to resolve it, or provide an explanation if it cannot be resolved.
Additionally, the Company has contracted with an outside service to provide a 24 hours a day, seven days a week anonymous reporting hotline. This hotline should be used only after you have reported the incident to your supervisor and feel that the matter has not been fully resolved, or where reporting the incident to the supervisor would be inappropriate. The phone number for the hotline is 1.800.231.5689.
You may use our OPEN DOOR policy without fear of criticism or retaliation from any employee of the Company.

SEXUAL & OTHER TYPES OF HARASSMENT
The Company provides a working environment free from any form of sexual or discriminatory harassment. Each individual has the right to work in an environment which promotes equal opportunities and prohibits discriminatory practices, including sexual harassment.

Sexual Harassment
In accordance with guidelines issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on discrimination, sex or sexual harassment in the workplace is a prohibited personnel practice and the Company expressly prohibits such conduct. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when:

•

Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of

an individual's employment;

•

Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for an

employment decision(s) affecting the individual;

•

Such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's

work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

14

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 15 of 21

CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON

No supervisor, co-employee or non-employee shall threaten or suggest that an employee's refusal to submit to sexual advances will adversely affect the employee's employment, wages, advancement, assigned duties, shifts, or any other condition of employment.
Other types of prohibited conduct by supervisors, co-employees or non-employees include sexual advances, propositions, verbal abuse of a sexual nature, suggestive touching, suggestive gestures and comments, graphic verbal descriptions of an individual's body, and the display in the work place of sexually suggestive objects or pictures.

Other Types of Harassment
Harassment based on any other protected characteristic is also strictly prohibited. Under this policy, harassment is verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual because of his/her race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, citizenship status, creed, sexual orientation, or other characteristic protected by law.

Retaliation is Prohibited
The Company prohibits retaliation against any individual who reports discrimination or harassment or participates in an investigation of such reports. Retaliation against an individual for reporting harassment or discrimination or for participating in an investigation of a claim of harassment or discrimination is a serious violation of this policy and, like harassment or discrimination itself, will be subject to disciplinary action.

Complaint Procedure
The Company strongly urges the reporting of all incidents of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation regardless of the offender's identity or position. Individuals who believe they have experienced conduct contrary to the Company's policy or who have concerns about such matters should file their complaints with one of the following resources before the conduct becomes more severe:

•

The Immediate Supervisor

•

The location's Human Resources Manager or a HR Department Representative;

•

The Company's Anonymous Reporting Hotline (1.800.231.5689).

Important Notice to All Employees
Employees who have experienced conduct they believe is contrary to policy should file a complaint immediately. An employee's failure to fulfill this obligation could affect his or her

15

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 16 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
rights in pursuing legal action. Also, please note: federal, state, and local discrimination laws establish specific time frames for initiating a legal proceeding pursuant to those laws. Early reporting and intervention have proven to be the most effective method of resolving actual or perceived incidents of harassment. Therefore, while no fixed reporting period has been established, the Company strongly urges the prompt reporting of complaints or concerns so that rapid and constructive action can be taken. The Company will make every effort to stop alleged harassment before it becomes severe or pervasive, but can only do so with the cooperation of its employees.
Investigation of Complaint Any reported allegations of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation will promptly be reported by the local Human Resources Manager to the Company's Executive Vice President of Human Resources, who will designate a person or persons responsible for conducting an investigation of the allegations. All claims of harassment, discrimination or retaliation will be investigated promptly, thoroughly, and impartially. The investigation may include individual interviews with the parties involved and, where necessary, with any individual who may have observed the alleged conduct or may have other relevant knowledge. Confidentiality will be maintained throughout the investigative process to the extent possible. At the conclusion of the investigation, the person(s) responsible for conducting the investigation will prepare a written report of all findings and forward it to the Executive Vice President of Human Resources.
Responsive Action The Executive Vice President of Human Resources will review the results of investigations of such allegations with location managers and the Company's legal counsel to determine the Company's response. Misconduct, harassment, discrimination, or retaliation will be dealt with promptly and appropriately and could include discharge from employment, if warranted by the circumstances. The results of the Company's investigation of such allegations and its intended response will be promptly communicated to the person(s) who filed the complaint.
16

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 17 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
EXHIBIT "B" NOTICE
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES POSTED PURSUANT TO A CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND AIRGUIDE CORPORATION AND PIONEER METALS, INC. This notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission & Plaintiff-Intervenors v. Airguide Corporation, et a!., Civil Action No. 02-22912-CN. The Companies have agreed that they will use their best efforts to prevent discrimination against employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Title VII protects individuals from employment discrimination because of their race, religion, color, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy) and/or national origin. Title VII also protects individuals from retaliation for having complained of an unlawful employment practice. The Companies will not condone discrimination of any kind as set forth in federal laws, including, but not limited to, harassment on the basis of any protected category. Furthermore, the Companies assure their employees that they support Title VII and will not take any action against an individual because he/she has exercised his/her rights under the law to oppose discriminatory acts or to file charges with the EEOC. Appropriate corrective action, up to and including termination, shall be taken against any employee (including management personnel) found to violate the policies regarding discrimination, based upon the circumstances involved. This notice shall remain posted for four years from the date signed. Employees or applicants for employment who have questions about their rights under Title VII or any other federal anti-discrimination law may telephone the Miami District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at 1-800-669-4000. Signed this_ day of _ _ _ _ _, 2004.
President, Pioneer Metals, Inc.
17

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 18 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
EXHIBIT "C"
LETTER OF REFERENCE
June_, 2004
Re: Letter Of Reference TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ was employed by Airguide Corporation from approximately ____, 199_ through _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 200_. During that time, she [he] worked as an _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ in the manufacturing plant. The provision of only the above information is consistent with Airguide's policy to provide only that information and to confirm wage/salary information upon request.
Sincerely,
Santiago Zamudio Former Human Resources Manager Airguide Corporation
18

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 19 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
EXHIBIT "D"
MONETARY DISTRIBUTION The $1,000,000.00monetary relief paid to resolve EEOC v. Xiomara Guerrero, et al. v. Airguide shall be distributed as follows: (A) Defendants will pay Jorge Fiol $3,217.00, which shall be representative of lost wages less appropriate withholding and payroll taxes. Defendant shall be responsible for the payment of the employer's share of any FICA and FUTA, and will issue a form W-2 for same. Defendants will pay Jorge Fiol $61,783.00 representing compensatory and punitive damages and issue an I.R.S. form 1099 itemizing same. (B) Defendants will pay Emesto Hedman $5,214.00, which shall be representative of lost wages less appropriate withholding and payroll taxes. Defendant shall be responsible for the payment of the employer's share of FICA and FUTA, and will issue a form W-2 for same. Defendants will pay Emesto Hedman $59,786.00 representing compensatory and punitive damages and issue an I.R.S. form 1099 itemizing same. (C) Defendants will pay Juan Carlos Suarez $6,928.00, which shall be representative of lost wages less appropriate withholding and payroll taxes. Defendants shall be responsible for the payment of the employer's share of FICA and FUTA, and will issue a form W-2 for same. Defendants will pay Juan Carlos Suarez $58,072.00 representing compensatory and punitive damages and issue an I.R.S. form 1099 itemizing same. (D) Defendants will pay Hilario Pineda $12,924.00, which shall be representative of lost wages less appropriate withholding and payroll taxes. Defendant shall be responsible for the
19

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 20 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
payment of the employer's share of FICA and FUTA, and will issue a form W-2 for same. Defendants will pay Hilario Pineda $53,076.00 representing compensatory and punitive damages and issue an I.R.S. form 1099 itemizing same.
(E) Defendants will pay Xiomara Guerrero $16,232.00, which shall be representative of lost wages less appropriate withholding and payroll taxes. Defendant shall be responsible for the payment of the employer's share of FICA and FUTA, and will issue a form W-2 for same. Defendants will pay Xiomara Guerrero $113,768.00 representing compensatory and punitive damages and issue an I.R.S. form 1099 itemizing same.
(F) Defendants will pay Maribel Suarez $13,135.07, which shall be representative of lost wages less appropriate withholding and payroll taxes. Defendant shall be responsible for the payment of the employer's share of FICA and FUTA, and will issue a form W-2 for same. Defendants will pay Maribel Suarez $116,864.93 representing compensatory and punitive damages and issue an I.R.S. form 1099 itemizing same.
(G) Defendants will pay Ofelia Rodriguez $130,000.00 representing compensatory and punitive damages and issue an I.R.S. form 1099 itemizing same.
(H) Defendants will pay $350,000.00 to Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez, Esq. representing attorney fees, and shall issue an I.R.S. form 1099 itemizing same.
The payments to the individual Plaintiff-Intervenors Mr. Fiol, Mr. Hedman, Mr. Suarez, Mr. Pineda, Ms. Guerrero, Ms. Suarez, and Ms. Rodriguez shall be made by check to their name and forwarded to Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez at The Law Offices of Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez, Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors, 2151 LeJeune Road, Suite 204, Coral Gables, FL 33134 by
20

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 21 of 21
CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON
certified mail with a return receipt requested. The payment to Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez, Esq. shall be made by check to Amarillys E. Garcia-Perez, Esq., and forwarded to Mrs. Garcia-Perez's business address, by certified mail with a return receipt requested.
21

 
 Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 02·22912-CIV·LENARD/SIMONTON Consolidated with
CASE NO. 02-23544-LENARD/SIMONTON

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff(s ),

XIOMARA GUERRERO; OFELIA RODRIGUEZ; MARIBEL SUAREZ; JORGE FIOL; ERNESTO HEDMAN; HILARIO PINEDA; JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ; and ALEXIS SILVA,

Intervenor Plaintiffs,
vs.
AIRGUIDE CORPORATION; PIONEER METALS, INC. and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC,

JUN 1 4 200't
CLARENCE MADDOX CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. S.D. OF FLA. · MIAMI

Defendant(s ).
--------------------------~/
JUAN SANCHEZ,

vs.

AIRGUIDE CORPORATION; PIONEER METALS, INC. and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC,

Defendant(s ).
--------------------------~/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANT GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice of Goodman Global filed June 8, 2004 and the Court being fully advised, it is hereby,

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 2 of 2

Case No. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice as to defendant

Goodman Global Holdings, Inc. .AJI pending motions as to defendant Goodman Global Holdings,

Inc. are DENIED as moot.

.Jbay DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this

of June, 2004.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton all counsel of record

-2-

 
 Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2004 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 02·22912-CIV·LENARD/SIMONTON Consolidated with
CASE NO. 02·23544·LENARD/SIMONTON

CLOSED CIVIL CASE

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff(s },
XIOMARA GUERRERO; OFELIA RODRIGUEZ; MARIBEL SUAREZ; JORGE FIOL; ERNESTO HEDMAN; HILARIO PINEDA; JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ; and ALEXIS SILVA,

FILED by
--rr-~""-

~lC~l"A1(llfuN.cIr.

AtADDOl! D'ir. CT.

. . 0' 'lA.. At'AM,

Intervenor Plaintiffs,

vs.

A1RGUIDE CORPORATION; PIONEER METALS, INC. and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC,

Defendant(s ).

_ _ _ _I

JUAN SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff vs.

AIRGUIDE CORPORATION; PIONEER METALS, INC. and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.

Defendant(s ).

- -I

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Joint Notice of Settlement filed May 10, 2004 and the Court being fully advised, it is hereby,

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2004 Page 2 of 2

Case No. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice. The parties have not submitted the Settlement Agreement, therefore the Court does not retain jurisdiction. If the parties choose to submit the Settlement Agreement, they may file it along with appropriate motions, within thirty (30) days of this order. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE forthwith. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
1L DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this day of May 2004.

Copies furnished to: Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton All counsel of record

J~{r./~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

 
 Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 02-22912-CIV·LENARD/SIMONTON Consolidated with
CASE NO. 02-23544-LENARD/SIMONTON

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff(s),
XIOMARA GUERRERO; OFELIA RODRIGUEZ; MARIBEL SUAREZ; JORGE FIOL; ERNESTO HEDMAN; HILARIO PINEDA; JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ; and ALEXIS SILVA,
Intervenor Plaintiffs,

tV FILED by

D.C.

JUN f 4 2004

CLARENCE MADDOX CLERK U. S. DIST. CT. S. D. OF FLA.· MIAMI

vs.

A1RGUIDE CORPORATION; PIONEER METALS, INC. and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC,

Defendant(s ).
--------------------------~/
JUAN SANCHEZ,

vs.

AIRGUIDE CORPORATION; PIONEER METALS, INC. and GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC,

Defendant(s ).
--------------------------~/

AMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Consent Decree filed on June 8, 2004. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(2), the terms of this Consent Decree are incorporated by reference into this Order. The court, being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby,

Case 1:02-cv-22912-JAL Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2004 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 02-22912-CIV-LENARD/SIMONTON ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE forthwith. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action only for the purpose of enforcing the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree entered into by and between the parties. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this -ifday of June, 2004.
JO A LENARD
UNITED STATES D STRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton all counsel of record
Since the initiation of this Court's FAXBACK program, the parties are no
longer required to submit envelopes with their motions & proposed orders.
Orders should include a full service list, with fax numbers.
-2-

 
 CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...

U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-22912-JAL

CLOSED

US Equal Employment v. Airguide Corporation, et al Assigned to: Judge Joan A. Lenard Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

Date Filed: 09/30/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Carla Johanna Von Greiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 501 E Polk Street Suite 1000, Timberlake Federal Bldg Tampa, FL 33602 813-202-7903 Fax: 813-228-2045 Email: carla.vongreiff@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cheryl A. Cooper Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office 2 S Biscayne Boulevard 2700 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-2483 305-808-1786 Fax: 808-1835 Email: Cheryl.cooper@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Delner Franklin-Thomas Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office 2 S Biscayne Boulevard 2700 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-2483 305-530-6006 Fax: 536-4494 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 15

6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report
V. Defendant Airguide Corporation
2 of 15

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...
Maria Teresa Rodriguez Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office 2 S Biscayne Boulevard 2700 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-2483 305-530-6010 Fax: 536-4494 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angel Castillo, Jr. Morgan Lewis & Bockius 200 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 5300 Wachovia Financial Center Miami, FL 33131-2339 305-415-3488-fax-877 Fax: 432-9652 Email: angel.castillo@ogletreedeakins.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marlene Rodriguez United States Attorney's Office 99 NE 4 Street Miami, FL 33132 305-961-9206 Fax: 530-7139 Email: marlene.rodriguez@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Ann Lisitzky Morgan Lewis & Bockius 200 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 5300 Wachovia Financial Center Miami, FL 33131-2339 305-415-3369 Fax: 305-415-3001 Email: slisitzky@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Russell Hamilton, III Morgan Lewis & Bockius
6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report
Defendant Pioneer Metals, Inc.
Defendant Goodman Global Holdings, Inc.
3 of 15

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...
200 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 5300 Wachovia Financial Center Miami, FL 33131-2339 305-415-3440 Fax: 877-432-9652 Email: rhamilton@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angel Castillo, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marlene Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Ann Lisitzky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Russell Hamilton, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angel Castillo, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marlene Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Ann Lisitzky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Russell Hamilton, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report
V. Intervenor Defendant Airguide Corporation
Intervenor Defendant Pioneer Metals, Inc.
Intervenor Defendant Goodman Global Holdings, Inc.
4 of 15

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...
represented by Marlene Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Ann Lisitzky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Russell Hamilton, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Marlene Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Ann Lisitzky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Russell Hamilton, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Marlene Rodriguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Ann Lisitzky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Russell Hamilton, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...

Date Filed 09/30/2002 09/30/2002 09/30/2002 09/30/2002 01/03/2003
01/03/2003
01/03/2003
01/03/2003 01/03/2003 01/03/2003 01/06/2003
01/06/2003
01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/21/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; Magistrate Judge Simonton (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
2 SUMMONS(ES) issued for Airguide Corporation (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
3 SUMMONS(ES) issued for Pioneer Metals, Inc. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
4 SUMMONS(ES) issued for Goodman Global (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
5 Answer and affirmative defenses by Pioneer Metals, Inc. (Attorney William Russell Hamilton III, Marlene Rodriguez, Sharon Ann Lisitzky) (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
6 Answer and affirmative defenses by Goodman Global (Attorney William Russell Hamilton III, Marlene Rodriguez, Sharon Ann Lisitzky) (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
7 Answer and affirmative defenses by Airguide Corporation (Attorney William Russell Hamilton III, Marlene Rodriguez, Sharon Ann Lisitzky) (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
8 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Goodman Global (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
9 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Airguide Corporation (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
10 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Pioneer Metals, Inc. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
11 ORDER REFERRING DISCOVERY MATTERS to Magistrate Judge Simonton; Order directing parties to file Certificate of Interested Parties and Joint Scheduling Report (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 1/6/03) CCAP [EOD Date: 1/7/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
12 ORDER Requiring Completion of Form Consenting to Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge for Final Disposition (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 1/6/03) [EOD Date: 1/7/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
13 NOTICE of Pendency of Other Action by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
14 NOTICE of Filing in accordance with Court's Orders of 1/6/03 by US Equal Employment (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
15 Certificate of Interested Parties by Goodman Global (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2003)

5 of 15

6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...

01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003
01/24/2003 01/27/2003 02/03/2003
02/03/2003 02/05/2003 02/05/2003 02/05/2003 02/06/2003
02/06/2003

16 Certificate of Interested Parties by Pioneer Metals, Inc. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
17 Certificate of Interested Parties by Airguide Corporation (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
18 MOTION to intervene as plaintiffs by Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Suarez, Alexis Silva (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
19 ORDER REFERRING DISCOVERY MATTERS to Magistrate Judge Simonton; Order directing parties to file Certificate of Interested Parties and Joint Scheduling Report (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 1/24/03) CCAP [EOD Date: 1/28/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
20 ORDER Requiring Completion of Form Consenting to Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge for Final Disposition (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 1/24/03) [EOD Date: 1/28/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
21 Consent to Jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge for discovery, costs, fees, sanctions by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
22 AMENDED MOTION by Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Suarez, Alexis Silva to intervene as plaintiffs referring to [18-1] motion to intervene as plaintiffs by Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Suarez, Alexis Silva (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
23 RESPONSE by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global to [22-2] amended motion, [22-1] motion to intervene as plaintiffs (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
24 NOTICE of Filing certificate of interested persons by Juan Carlos Sanchez (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
25 Certificate of Interested Persons by Juan Carlos Sanchez (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
26 Consent to Jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge for discovery, costs, fees, sanctions by Juan Carlos Sanchez (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
27 ORDER granting [22-2] amended motion, granting [22-1] motion to intervene as plaintiffs, [18-1] motion to intervene as plaintiffs by Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Suarez, Alexis Silva ( Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 2/6/03) [EOD Date: 2/7/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
30 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Suarez, Alexis Silva against Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2003)

6 of 15

6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...

02/19/2003
02/19/2003 02/27/2003 02/27/2003 02/27/2003 02/27/2003 02/27/2003 02/27/2003 03/03/2003
03/10/2003 03/10/2003 03/11/2003 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 04/14/2003

28 ORDER REFERRING DISCOVERY MATTERS to Magistrate Judge Simonton; Order directing parties to file Certificate of Interested Parties and Joint Scheduling Report (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 2/19/03) CCAP [EOD Date: 2/20/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/20/2003)
29 ORDER Requiring Completion of Form Consenting to Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge for Final Disposition (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 2/19/03) [EOD Date: 2/20/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/20/2003)
30 ANSWER by Airguide Corporation to intervenor complaint (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
31 ANSWER by Airguide Corporation to [30-1] intervenor complaint (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
32 ANSWER by Pioneer Metals, Inc. to [30-1] intervenor complaint (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
33 ANSWER by Goodman Global to [30-1] intervenor complaint (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
34 NOTICE of Filing certificate of interested parties by Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Alexis Silva (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
35 Certificate of Interested Persons by Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Alexis Silva (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
36 Consent to Jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge for discovery, costs, fees, sanctions by Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Alexis Silva (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
37 NOTICE of Unavailability by US Equal Employment for dates of: 4/17/03-4/28/03 (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
38 Request by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global for status conference (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
39 MOTION by US Equal Employment to substitute Cheryl Cooper as Attorney (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
40 Joint Scheduling Report of Scheduling Meeting by US Equal Employment, Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
41 ORDER granting [39-1] motion to substitute Cheryl Cooper as Attorney (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 3/13/03) [EOD Date: 3/14/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/14/2003)
42 ORDER granting [38-1] motion for status conference status conference for 3:30 4/28/03 before Judge Joan A. Lenard ( Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 4/14/03) [EOD Date: 4/15/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/15/2003)

7 of 15

6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...

04/21/2003 04/22/2003 04/23/2003 04/23/2003
04/23/2003
04/24/2003 05/07/2003 05/07/2003 05/19/2003 05/29/2003 06/03/2003 06/09/2003 06/17/2003 06/18/2003
06/18/2003

43 Statement of position regarding the scope of consolidation and deviation from discovery limitations by US Equal Employment (ct, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
44 Joint Statement of position regarding consolidation by Juan Carlos Sanchez, Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Alexis Silva (ct, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
45 Statement of of position regarding the appropriate scope of consolidation for consideration at status conference by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global re: (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
46 Statement of position regarding proposed variations from established discovery limitations in the EEOC case for consideration at status conference by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
47 Statement of position regarding by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global re: proposed variations from established discovery limitations in the EEOC case for consideration at status conference (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
48 NOTICE of Hearing: reset status conference for 2:30 5/7/03 before Judge Joan A. Lenard (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/25/2003)
49 Minutes of status conference held before Judge Joan A. Lenard on 5/7/03; Court Reporter Name or Tape #: Randy Belsvik (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/08/2003)
Status conference held before Judge Joan A. Lenard (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/08/2003)
50 Submission regarding jury confusion and prejudicial impact of proposed consolidation for pre-trial and trial by Airguide Corporation (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
51 MEMORANDUM by US Equal Employment in opposition to [50-1] submission regarding jury confusion (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
52 NOTICE of Pendency of Similar Action by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
53 RESPONSE by US Equal Employment in opposition to [50-1] submission regarding jury confusion (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/09/2003)
54 ORDER Clarifying Scope of Consolidation (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 6/17/03) [EOD Date: 6/18/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
55 ORDER Adopting Joint Scheduling Report setting Jury trial set for 9:00 6/28/04 Calendar call set for 2:30 6/23/04 Discovery cutoff 1/16/04 ; Pretrial conference for 3:00 6/17/04 (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 6/18/03) [EOD Date: 6/19/03] CCAP (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
56 ORDER referring case to mediation. 15 days to appoint mediator (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 6/18/03) [EOD Date: 6/19/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/19/2003)

8 of 15

6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...

07/03/2003 07/03/2003 07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/08/2003 07/11/2003 07/11/2003 07/14/2003 07/18/2003 07/18/2003 07/22/2003 08/04/2003 08/07/2003

57 NOTICE of submission of proposed order scheduling mediation by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
58 NOTICE of Unavailability by US Equal Employment for dates of: 7/15/03-7/22/03 (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
59 MOTION with memorandum in support by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global to compel more complete initial disclosures (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
Motion(s) referred: [59-1] motion to compel more complete initial disclosures referred to Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
60 ORDER SCHEDULING MEDIATION before Mediator: Thomas E. Scott Jr. for 3/1/04 at 9:00 (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 7/8/03) [EOD Date: 7/9/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
61 MOTION by Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Alexis Silva to extend time to respond to defendants' motion to compel more complete initial disclosures (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
Motion(s) referred: [61-1] motion to extend time to respond to defendants' motion to compel more complete initial disclosures referred to Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
62 ORDER granting [61-1] motion to extend time to respond to defendants' motion to compel more complete initial disclosures until 8/4/03 (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 7/14/03) [EOD Date: 7/15/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
63 UNOPPOSED MOTION by US Equal Employment to extend time to respond to defendant's motion to compel more complete initial disclosures (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
Motion(s) referred: [63-1] motion to extend time to respond to defendant's motion to compel more complete initial disclosures referred to Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
64 ORDER granting [63-1] motion to extend time to respond to defendant's motion to compel more complete initial disclosures (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 7/21/03) [EOD Date: 7/23/03] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
65 MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE by Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Alexis Silva to [59-1] motion to compel more complete initial disclosures (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
66 RESPONSE by US Equal Employment to [59-1] motion to compel more complete initial disclosures, [39-1] motion to substitute Cheryl Cooper as Attorney (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/08/2003)

9 of 15

6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...

08/13/2003 08/15/2003 08/19/2003
08/21/2003 08/22/2003 08/22/2003 09/04/2003 10/21/2003 11/07/2003 11/17/2003 11/26/2003 12/02/2003 12/04/2003
12/04/2003

67 REPLY by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global in support of [59-1] motion to compel more complete initial disclosures (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
68 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global to extend time to serve reply in support of its motio to compel more complete initial disclosures (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
69 ORDER granting [68-1] motion to extend time to serve reply in support of its motio to compel more complete initial disclosures Reply to Response to Motion reset to 8/22/03 for [59-1] motion to compel more complete initial disclosures ( Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 08/19/03) [EOD Date: 8/20/03] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
70 REPLY by All Defendants in support of [59-1] motion to compel more complete initial disclosures (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
71 NOTICE OF SERVICE of reply in support of its motion to compel more complete initial disclosures by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
72 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
73 ORDER denying [59-1] motion to compel more complete initial disclosures ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 9/4/03) [EOD Date: 9/5/03] (ct, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
74 MOTION with memorandum in support by US Equal Employment to extend case management deadlines (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
75 RESPONSE by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global to [74-1] motion to extend case management deadlines (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
76 REPLY by US Equal Employment to response to [74-1] motion to extend case management deadlines (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
77 MOTION with memorandum in support by Airguide Corporation to compel execution of authorizations (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
78 EMERGENCY MOTION by Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Alexis Silva for protective order , and to quash (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
79 ORDER SETTING HEARING Motion hearing before Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton set for 3:00 12/16/03 for [78-1] motion for protective order, set for 3:00 12/16/03 for [78-2] motion to quash ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 12/03/03) [EOD Date: 12/5/03] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
81 ORDER granting [74-1] motion to extend case management deadlines setting discovery deadline for 4/16/04 , setting pretrial stipulation due for 9/15/04 , setting pretrial conference for 3:00 10/20/04 before Judge Joan A. Lenard , setting calendar call for 3:30 10/27/04 before Judge Joan A. Lenard , setting Jury

10 of 15

6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...

12/05/2003
12/05/2003 12/09/2003 12/11/2003
12/12/2003 12/16/2003 12/19/2003 12/19/2003 12/19/2003
12/22/2003 12/23/2003 12/23/2003

trial for 9:00 11/1/04 before Judge Joan A. Lenard ( Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 12/3/03) [EOD Date: 12/8/03] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
80 ORDER TO SUBMIT PROPOSED ORDER SCHEDULING MEDIATION granting [74-1] motion to extend case management deadlines (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 12/05/03) Date: 12/8/03] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
82 NOTICE of Unavailability by Xiomara Guerrero, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Hilario Pineda, Ernesto Hedman, Jorge Fiol, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Alexis Silva for dates of: 12/22/02-01/05/03 (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
83 NOTICE of Unavailability by US Equal Employment for dates of: 12/22/03 to 01/02/04 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
84 ORDER SETTING HEARING Motion hearing before Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton set for 3:00 1/23/04 for [78-1] motion for protective order, set for 3:00 1/23/04 for [78-2] motion to quash (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 12/11/03) [EOD Date: 12/12/03] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
85 MEMORANDUM by Airguide Corporation in opposition to [78-1] motion for protective order (ct, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
86 ORDER SCHEDULING MEDIATION before Mediator:Thomas Scott for 3/1/04 Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 12/16/03) [EOD Date: 12/17/03] (tb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
87 STIPULATION of dismissal with prejudice of all claims by Alexis Silva (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
88 REPLY MEMORANDUM by Juan Carlos Sanchez in opposition to [78-1] motion for protective order (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
89 NOTICE of filing excerpt from deposition of Hilario Pineda in support of memorandum in opposition to motion for protective order by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
90 ORDER OF DISMISSAL dismissing claims by plaintiff Intervenor Alexis Silva with prejudice (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 12/22/03) [EOD Date: 12/23/03] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
91 ORDER granting [77-1] motion to compel execution of authorizations ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 12/23/03) [EOD Date: 12/24/03] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/24/2003)
92 ORDER SETTING HEARING Motion hearing before Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton set for 10:00 1/23/04 for [78-1] motion for protective order, set for 10:00 1/23/04 for [78-2] motion quash (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 12/23/03) [EOD Date: 12/24/03] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/24/2003)

11 of 15

6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...

01/23/2004 01/23/2004 01/23/2004 01/23/2004 01/23/2004 01/26/2004 02/03/2004 02/27/2004 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 03/08/2004 03/10/2004 03/10/2004
03/15/2004 03/17/2004

93 NOTICE of filing deposition transcripts in support of its opposition to motion for protective order and quash subpoena by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
94 DEPOSITION of Xiomara Guerrero Re: in support of its opposition to motion for protective order and quash subpoena (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
95 DEPOSITION of Hilario Pineda Re: in support of its opposition to motion for protective order and quash subpoena (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
96 Minutes of Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Subpoena held before Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 01/23/04; Court Reporter Name or Tape #: 04FX-7-3321 & 04FX-8-1 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
Motion hearing re: [78-1] motion for protective order Motion hearing held, [78-2] motion to quash Motion hearing held (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
97 ORDER granting [78-1] motion for protective order, granting [78-2] motion to quash ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 01/26/04) [EOD Date: 1/27/04] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/27/2004)
98 Transcript filed re: Hearing on Motion for Protective Order held 1/23/04 before Judge Andrea M. Simonton Pages: 1-47 (nc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
99 NOTICE of postponement of mediation by All Defendants (ct, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
100 OBJECTION by Hilario Pineda to Subpoena Duces Tecum (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
100 OBJECTION by Hilario Pineda to [78-1] motion for protective order, [78-2] motion to quash (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
101 NOTICE of change of Mediator and Mediation Hearing on 05/07/04 at 9:00 J. Joaquin Fraxedas added as mediator (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/09/2004)
102 ORDER SCHEDULING MEDIATION before Mediator: J. Joaquin Fraxedas for 05/07/04 at 9:30 (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 03/10/04) Date: 3/11/04] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
103 AMENDED NOTICE by Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Sanchez, Alexis Silva to take deposition of Ruth Barthelme 3/17/04 at 1:00 (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
104 MOTION by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global to extend time to respond to objections to subpoena duces tecum and motion for protective order and to quash subpoena (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
105 OPPOSITION by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global to [100-1] objection to subpoena and motion for protective order and to quash subpoena (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/18/2004)

12 of 15

6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...

03/17/2004 03/18/2004 03/25/2004 03/25/2004 03/25/2004 04/02/2004 04/05/2004 04/07/2004 04/07/2004 04/21/2004 05/03/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004

106 RESPONSE by Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Sanchez to [104-1] motion to extend time to respond to objections to subpoena duces tecum and motion for protective order and to quash subpoena (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
107 ORDER granting [104-1] motion to extend time to respond to objections to subpoena duces tecum and motion for protective order and to quash subpoena ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 03/18/04) [EOD Date: 3/19/04] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
108 CONSENTED MOTION with memorandum in support by US Equal Employment to Complete the Deposition of witness Jose Velaquez on 05/13/04, outside of the discovery period (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
109 REPLY by Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Sanchez to defendant's opposition to intervenor plaintiff Hilario Pineda and Juan Carlos Sanchez' objections to subpoena duces tecum (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
109 MOTION by Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Sanchez for protective order to protect plaintiff Hilario Pineda and Juan Carlos Sanchez from discovery , and to quash the subpoenas (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
110 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Doug Marty for protective order permitting the plaintiffs to depose Mr. Marty outside the discovery period on 05/06/04 and to quash subpoena (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
111 ORDER granting [108-1] motion to Complete the Deposition of witness Jose Velaquez on 05/13/04, outside of the discovery period ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 04/02/04) [EOD Date: 4/6/04] (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
112 ORDER granting [110-1] motion for protective order permitting the plaintiffs to depose Mr. Marty outside the discovery period on 05/06/04, granting [110-2] motion to quash subpoena ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 04/07/04) [EOD Date: 4/8/04] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
113 ORDER granting [109-1] motion for protective order to protect plaintiff Hilario Pineda and Juan Carlos Sanchez from discovery, granting [109-2] motion to quash the subpoenas ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 04/07/04) [EOD Date: 4/8/04] (nt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
114 MOTION with memorandum in support by Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global for leave to exceed page limits for statement of material facts in support of motion for summary judgment (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
115 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to [114-1] motion for leave to exceed page limits for statement of material facts in support of motion for summary judgment (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
116 JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT filed by Airguide Corporation, Juan Carlos Sanchez (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
117 JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT filed by US Equal Employment, Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global, Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan

13 of 15

6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...

05/11/2004
05/11/2004 05/17/2004 06/08/2004 06/14/2004 06/14/2004 06/14/2004 06/14/2004 06/14/2004

Carlos Sanchez, Alexis Silva (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
118 Order of dismissal. Ordered and adjudged that this action is dismissed with prejudice . All pending motions are denied as moot. The case is closed. ( Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 5/11/04) [EOD Date: 5/12/04] (ct, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
CASE CLOSED. Case and Motions no longer referred to Magistrate. (ct, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
119 FINAL report of Mediator. Disposition: Settlement (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
120 STIPULATION of Voluntary dismissal of Goodman Global Holdings, Inc. with prejudiuce by US Equal Employment (ra, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
121 STIPULATION of dismissal by Juan Carlos Sanchez, Airguide Corporation, Pioneer Metals, Inc., Goodman Global (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
122 CONSENT DECREE/ORDER [see order for details] (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 6/14/04) [EOD Date: 6/15/04] (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
123 ORDER dismissing cause with prejudice as to defendant Goodman Global Holdings, Inc. ( Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 6/14/04) [EOD Date: 6/15/04] (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
124 ORDER dismissing cause with prejudice and denying all pending motions as moot and closing case (Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 6/14/04) [EOD Date: 6/15/04] (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
CASE CLOSED. Case and Motions no longer referred to Magistrate. [114-1] motion for leave to exceed page limits for statement of material facts in support of motion for summary judgment, [110-1] motion for protective order permitting the plaintiffs to depose Mr. Marty outside the discovery period on 05/06/04, [110-2] motion to quash subpoena, [109-1] motion for protective order to protect plaintiff Hilario Pineda and Juan Carlos Sanchez from discovery, [109-2] motion to quash the subpoenas, [108-1] motion to Complete the Deposition of witness Jose Velaquez on 05/13/04, outside of the discovery period, [104-1] motion to extend time to respond to objections to subpoena duces tecum and motion for protective order and to quash subpoena, [78-1] motion for protective order, [78-2] motion to quash, [77-1] motion to compel execution of authorizations, [74-1] motion to extend case management deadlines, [68-1] motion to extend time to serve reply in support of its motio to compel more complete initial disclosures, [63-1] motion to extend time to respond to defendant's motion to compel more complete initial disclosures, [61-1] motion to extend time to respond to defendants' motion to compel more complete initial disclosures, [59-1] motion to compel more complete initial disclosures, [39-1] motion to substitute Cheryl Cooper as Attorney, [38-1] motion for status conference, [22-1] motion to intervene as plaintiffs, [22-2] amended motion, [18-1] motion to intervene as plaintiffs by Xiomara Guerrero, Ofelia Rodriguez, Maribel Suarez, Jorge Fiol, Ernesto Hedman, Hilario Pineda, Juan Carlos Suarez, Alexis Silva (dg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/15/2004)

14 of 15

6/14/2007 1:23 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113428553512764-L_92...

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/14/2007 14:24:42

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 9

Cost:

eeoc 1:02-cv-22912-JAL 0.72

15 of 15

6/14/2007 1:23 PM

 
 Airguide Corporation and Pioneer Metals, Inc. to Pay $1 Million for Sex...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-17-04a.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 17, 2004

CONTACT: Federico Costales, District Director (305) 530-6001
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Regional Atty. (305) 530-6001 (305) 530-6116
Michael J. Farrell, Supervisory Attorney (305) 530-6001 (305) 530-6116

AIRGUIDE CORPORATION AND PIONEER METALS, INC. TO PAY $1 MILLION FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT, RETALIATION

EEOC Suit Said Employees were Fired, Reprimanded, for Complaining about Graphic Slurs
MIAMI - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced a $1,000,000 settlement of an employment discrimination lawsuit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act against former Hialeah, Fla.-based Airguide Corporation and Pioneer Metals, Inc. At the time of the discrimination, Airguide Corporation manufactured parts and accessories for both commercial and residential heating and air conditioning units. Defendant Pioneer Metals, Inc. was the parent company for Airguide Corporation.
EEOC's suit said that three former female employees at the companies' Hialeah manufacturing plant were subjected to sexual harassment in the form of sexually explicit slurs and comments by their supervisor and, despite repeated complaints to management officials, the harassment persisted. The lawsuit also alleged that after several employees participated in the EEOC's investigation and/or filed charges of discrimination with the Commission, they were subjected to retaliation by the companies in the form of reprimands, discipline, harassment, suspensions, and terminations.
"I am thankful that the EEOC took our cases to court," said Ms. Maribel Suarez, one of the female employees who was retaliated against after her complaints of sexual harassment. "The harassment and retaliation that I and the other workers were subjected to negatively impacted all of our lives. It is great to put this matter behind us and move forward."
Under the terms of the Consent Decree settling the case (Civ. No. 02-22912), approved earlier this week by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Airguide Corporation and Pioneer Metals, Inc. will:
Pay a total of $1,000,000 in monetary damages to be divided among seven former employees;
Conduct annual training at its 19 facilities located throughout the state of Florida in an effort to prevent future discrimination; and,
Undergo monitoring by the EEOC to prevent recurrences of discriminatory conduct throughout the three-year duration of the Consent Decree.
"As we approach the 40th anniversary of the landmark Civil Rights Act in July, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace are still far too common an occurrence," said EEOC Miami District Director Federico Costales. "Employers need to be aware that the EEOC will continue to press on with its mission to eradicate employment discrimination in the workplace by prosecuting cases where it has found egregious acts of discrimination."
EEOC's Regional Attorney, Delner Franklin-Thomas, said: "The Commission's law enforcement responsibilities would be severely hampered if individuals become too afraid to come forward with reports of discrimination fearing it can cost them their jobs. As such, the EEOC takes a very serious stand in cases alleging retaliation for engaging in protected activities such as filing EEOC charges and/or participating in EEOC's investigations. The one million dollar resolution here sends a strong message that it is unacceptable for employers to punish employees for exercising their rights under anti-discrimination laws."
The EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act which prohibits disability discrimination against employees in the private sector and state and local governments; certain prohibitions in the Rehabilitation Act against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal sector; and certain sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov.

This page was last modified on June 17, 2004.

1 of 2

6/14/2007 1:26 PM

Airguide Corporation and Pioneer Metals, Inc. to Pay $1 Million for Sex...
Return to Home Page

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-17-04a.html

2 of 2

6/14/2007 1:26 PM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - June 2004

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement06-04.html

EEOC v. Airguide Corp. and Pioneer Metals, Inc. No. 02-22912-CIV-Lenard/Simonton (S.D. Fla. June 14, 2004)
The Miami District Office filed this Title VII suit against a South Florida heating/air conditioning parts manufacturer (Airguide) and its parent company (PMI) alleging that a supervisor at the manufacturing plant subjected three female employees to sexually explicit comments and that this sexual harassment continued despite their repeated complaints to management. EEOC also alleged that defendant retaliated against two of the women after they complained to management or the EEOC, disciplining both of them and ultimately discharging one and constructively discharging the other, who resigned after being transferred to another department against her will. Finally, EEOC alleged that four male employees were subjected to retaliation in the form of harassment, reprimands, suspensions, other discipline, or termination for providing information in support of the women's sexual harassment claims, filing EEOC charges on their own behalf, or participating in the EEOC's onsite investigations.
The case was resolved by a three-year consent decree that requires defendants to pay a total of $1 million to the seven complainants and to expunge their personnel files of any negative data such as unsatisfactory personnel entries, disciplinary warnings, and termination reports. Defendant PMI further agrees to disseminate its written policy prohibiting sexual harassment and retaliation to all of its employees and managers at PMI locations in the state of Florida (19 cities). PMI's president will meet personally with PMI's human resource manager and stress adherence to the federal anti-discrimination laws as well as the company's sexual harassment and retaliation policy. The HR manager also must attend a half day of training on complying with federal anti-discrimination laws, and notations of his meeting with the president and attendance at the training must be entered in his personnel file.

1 of 1

6/14/2007 1:26 PM