CasCea2se:026:-0c5v-0m1c2-4032-0J2F5C-RDCoMcumDenotcu1m78e1n-t11-1FileFdile0d9/019/1290/026006PagPeag1eo1f 7of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. d/b/a ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP, and FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. d/b/a ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) ) ) COMPLAINT ) ) Jury Trial Demanded ) ) )

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 of1991 to correct unlawful employment practices onthe basis of race/African American, and to provide appropriate reliefto Charging Party Anton L. Rumph, and similarly-situated African American employees ofDefendants who were adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraph 10 below, the Commission alleges that Charging Party Anton Rumph and a class of similarly-situated African American employees were discharged from employment by Defendants on the basis oftheir race. As a result oftheir discriminatory discharges, Mr. Rumpfand the class members suffered severe emotional distress damages and backpay losses.

Page 1 of 7

CasCea2se:026:-0c5v-0m1c2-4032-0J2F5C-RDCoMcumDenotcu1m78e1n-t11-1FileFdile0d9/019/1290/026006PagPeag2eo2f 7of 7
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. JurisdictionofthisCourtisinvokedpursuantto28U.S.C. §§451, 1331,1337,1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) ofTitle VTI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) ("Title VTI") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 198la. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were conunitted within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Conunission"), 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)(l) and
(3) ofTitle vn, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of Pennsylvania and the City of Pittsburgh, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. It conducts business under the name "Original Hot Dog Shop."
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting conunerce within the meaning ofSections 701(b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VTI, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant Food Gallery Original, Inc. has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of Pennsylvania and the City of Pittsburgh, and has
Page 2 of 7

CasCea2se:026:-0c5v-0m1c2-4032-0J2F5C-RDCoMcumDenotcu1m78e1n-t11-1FileFdile0d9/019/1290/026006PagPeag3eo3f 7of 7
continuously had at least 15 employees. It conducts business under the name "Original Hot Dog Shop."
7. At all relevant times, Defendant Food Gallery Original, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSections 70 l (b), (g) and (h) of Title Vll, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
8. Defendants Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. shall be referred to collectively as "Defendant Employer".
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 9. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Party Anton Rumph filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle Vli by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been fulfilled. 10. On or about September 22, 2005, Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703(a)(l)ofTitle Vll, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l), as follows: (a) In September 2006, Charging Party and a class ofsimilarly-situated African American individuals were employedbyDefendant Employer at the Original Hot Dog Shop located at the food court on the campus ofCarnegie Mellon University ("CMU store"). (b) Both oftl1e individually identified Defendants are owned by Sydney Simon. Mr. Simon's son, Bruce Simon, acted as the General Manager for both the CMU store and for another Original Hot Dog Shop located in Oakland, a neighborhood in the City of Pittsburgh where the University ofPittsburgh is located ("Oakland store").
Page 3 of 7

CasCea2se:026:-0c5v-0m1c2-4032-0J2F5C-RDCoMcumDenotcu1m78e1n-t11-1FileFdile0d9/019/1290/026006PagPeag4eo4f 7of 7
(c) On or about September 17, 2006, CMU Store Manager Addison Harrison resigned. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Simon hired a former employee to replace Mr. Harrison as CMU store manager.
(d) On or about September 22, 2005, Bruce Simon ordered the new store manager to discharge all ofthe African American employees located at the CMU store. After he had discharged several ofthe black employees, the new manager resigned in protest, as he viewed the directive to be racially motivated. This manager indicated that he was told by Bruce Simon to fire the black employees because CMU students did not like to be waited on by black employees.
(e) After the new manager resigned, Bruce Simon fired the remainder of the black employees located at the facility.
(t) Defendant Employer claims that the employees frred were fired due to a variety of reasons, including but not limited to, customer complaints, performance, or because they had not been trained properly. However, these claims are not worthy of belief and are pretextual for race discrimination.
11. The effect ofthe practices complained of in paragraph lO(a) through (t) above has been to deprive Charging Party Anton Rumph, and a class of similarly situated African American employees, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their race.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph lO(a) through (t) above were intentional.
13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph lO(a) through (t)
Page4of 7

CasCea2se:026:-0c5v-0m1c2-4032-0J2F5C-RDCoMcumDenotcu1m78e1n-t11-1FileFdile0d9/019/1290/026006PagPeag5eo5f 7of 7
above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Charging Party Anton Rumph and similarly situated African American employees.
PRAYER FOR RELffiF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in unlawful employment discrimination and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race. B. OrderDefendant Employerto institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African American employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Anton Rmnph and other AfricanAmerican employees, to be identified in the course oflitigation, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting ii'om the unlawful practices described in paragraphs 10 (a) through (f) above, in amounts to be determined at trial. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Anton Rumph and other affected African American employees, to be identified through this litigation, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting ii'om the unlawful practices complained ofin paragraphs 10 (a) through (f) above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss ofenjoyment oflife, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. OrderDefendant Employer to pay Anton Rmnph and other affected African American
Page5 of 7

CasCea2se:026:-0c5v-0m1c2-4032-0J2F5C-RDCoMcumDenotcu1m78e1n-t11-1FileFdile0d9/019/1290/026006PagPeag6eo6f 7of 7 employees pmritive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described in paragraphs 10 (a) through (f) above, in an amount to be determined at trial.
F. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
Page6 of 7

CasCea2se:026:-0c5v-0m1c2-4032-0J2F5C-RDCoMcumDenotcu1m78e1n-t11-1FileFdile0d9/019/1290/026006PagPeag7eo7f 7of 7

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

RONALD S. COOPER
GENERAL COUNSEL
JAMESL.LEE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS ~SOCIATE GENERAL 0

AIR REGIONAL ATTORNEY
~1)/01~~

JUDITH A. O'BOYLE

SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY
7iJ .~ &~!hv{tjU'Jl

M. JE_& CLICKNER

-;J

SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY

Pa. I.D. No. 42738

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Pittsburgh Area Office

Liberty Center, Suite 300

1001 Liberty Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

(412) 644-6439

(412) 644-4935 (facsimile)

jean.clickner@eeoc.gov

Page7 of 7

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 2 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. d/b/a ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP, and FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. d/b/a ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) ) AMENDED ) COMPLAINT ) ) Jury Trial Demanded ) ) )

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 of race/African American, and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Anton L. Rumph, and similarly-situated African American employees of Defendants who were adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraph 10 below, the Commission alleges that Charging Party Anton Rumph and a class of similarly-situated African American employees were discharged from employment by Defendants on the basis of their race. As a result of their discriminatory discharges, Mr. Rumpf and the class members suffered severe emotional distress damages and backpay losses.

Page 1 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 2 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 2 of 7
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "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 Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of Pennsylvania and the City of Pittsburgh, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. It conducts business under the name “Original Hot Dog Shop.” 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. 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(b), (g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Food Gallery Original, Inc. has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of Pennsylvania and the City of Pittsburgh, and has
Page 2 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 2 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 3 of 7
continuously had at least 15 employees. It conducts business under the name “Original Hot Dog Shop.”
7. At all relevant times, Defendant Food Gallery Original, Inc. 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(b), (g) and (h).
8. Defendants Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. shall be referred to collectively as “Defendant Employer”.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 9. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Party Anton Rumph filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 10. On or about September 22, 2005, Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703(a)(1)of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), as follows: (a) In September 2005, Charging Party and a class of similarly-situated African American individuals were employed by Defendant Employer at the Original Hot Dog Shop located at the food court on the campus of Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU store”). (b) Both of the individually identified Defendants are owned by Sydney Simon. Mr. Simon’s son, Bruce Simon, acted as the General Manager for both the CMU store and for another Original Hot Dog Shop located in Oakland, a neighborhood in the City of Pittsburgh where the University of Pittsburgh is located (“Oakland store”).
Page 3 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 2 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 4 of 7
(c) On or about September 17, 2005, CMU Store Manager Addison Harrison resigned. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Simon hired a former employee to replace Mr. Harrison as CMU store manager.
(d) On or about September 22, 2005, Bruce Simon ordered the new store manager to discharge all of the African American employees located at the CMU store. After he had discharged some of the black employees, the new manager resigned in protest, as he viewed the directive to be racially motivated. This manager indicated that he was told by Mr. Simon to fire the black employees because CMU students did not like to be waited on by black employees.
(e) After the new manager resigned, Bruce Simon fired the remainder of the black employees located at the facility.
(f) Defendant Employer claims that the employees fired were fired due to a variety of reasons, including but not limited to, customer complaints, performance, or because they had not been trained properly. However, these claims are not worthy of belief and are pretextual for race discrimination.
11. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 10(a) through (f) above has been to deprive Charging Party Anton Rumph, and a class of similarly situated African American employees, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their race.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 10(a) through (f) above were intentional.
13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 10(a) through (f)
Page 4 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 2 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 5 of 7
above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Charging Party Anton Rumph and similarly situated African American employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in unlawful employment discrimination and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carryout policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African American employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Anton Rumph and other African American employees, to be identified in the course of litigation, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices described in paragraphs 10 (a) through (f) above, in amounts to be determined at trial. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Anton Rumph and other affected African American employees, to be identified through this litigation, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 10 (a) through (f) above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendant Employer to pay Anton Rumph and other affected African American
Page 5 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 2 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 6 of 7 employees punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described in paragraphs 10 (a) through (f) above, in an amount to be determined at trial.
F. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
Page 6 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 2 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 7 of 7
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
RONALD S. COOPER GENERAL COUNSEL JAMES L. LEE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL
JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR REGIONAL ATTORNEY
JUDITH A. O’BOYLE SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY
M. JEAN CLICKNER SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY Pa. I.D. No. 42738
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Pittsburgh Area Office Liberty Center, Suite 300 1001 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 644-6439 (412) 644-4935 (facsimile) jean.clickner@eeoc.gov
Page 7 of 7

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 13 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs
ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. d/b/a ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP, and FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. d/b/a ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 06-1243 ) ) ) ) ) )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION I. Recommendation:
It is respectfully recommended that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Document No. 5) be denied. II. Report:
Presently before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7). For reasons discussed below, the defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied.
The plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), has filed an amended race discrimination complaint against defendants Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc., both doing business as Original Hot Dog Shop. The EEOC contends that on or about September 22, 2005, the defendants terminated the employment of Anton Rumph, the Charging Party, and a class of similarly-situated African American employees on the basis of their race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.1 The Court's

1. Anton Rumph, the Charging Party, filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on or about February 3, 2006, alleging that his employer, the Original Hot Dog Shop, discharged him from his position of counter worker because of his race. See, Exhibit A to the EEOC’s appendix.

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 13 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 2 of 10
jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. In its amended complaint, the EEOC complains that in September 2005, Anton
Rumph and a class of similarly-situated African American individuals were employed by the defendants at the Original Hot Dog Shop located at the food court on the campus of Carnegie Mellon University (the “CMU shop”); that both named defendants are owned by Sydney Simon, whose son, Bruce Simon, acted as General Manager for the CMU shop and for another Original Hot Dog Shop located in the Oakland neighborhood of Pittsburgh (the “Oakland shop”); that on or about September 17, 2005, the manager of the CMU shop (Addison Harrison) resigned, after which Mr. Simon hired a new manager for the CMU shop; that on or about September 22, 2005, Bruce Simon ordered the new manager to discharge all African American employees located at the CMU shop, purportedly because CMU students did not like to be waited on by African Americans; that in response to the directive, the new manager discharged some of the African American employees, but then he resigned in protest, believing the directive was racially motivated; and that following the new manager’s resignation, Bruce Simon discharged the remainder of the African American employees located at the CMU shop for such proffered reasons as customer complaints, poor performance, and/or lack of proper training.
In response to the amended complaint, the defendants have moved to dismiss it pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7). In support thereof, the defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, as Anton Rumph was employed by defendant Food Gallery Original, Inc. (“Food Gallery”), which did not employ the requisite number of employees, nor engage in commerce, so as to meet the statutory definition of an “employer” under Title VII. The defendants also argue that there is no basis upon which a class action may be maintained in this matter, as the alleged class of Anton Rumph and “similarlysituated African American employees” fails to meet the numerosity requirement of F.R.Civ.P. 23. As an alternate grounds for dismissal of the amended complaint, the defendants insist that the EEOC has failed to join necessary parties under F.R.Civ.P. 19.
2

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 13 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 3 of 10
A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss “may be treated as either a facial or factual challenge to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” Gould Electronics Inc. v. U.S., 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000). In reviewing a “facial attack”, which is based on the legal sufficiency of the claim, the Court “must only consider the allegations of the complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. Conversely, in reviewing a “factual attack”, as here, where a challenge is based on the sufficiency of jurisdictional fact, “the Court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself whether it has power to hear the case.” See, Carpet Group Int. v. Oriental Rug Importers, 227 F.3d 62, 69 (3d Cir. 2000). In such a scenario, “the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings”, Gould Electronics, 220 F.3d at 176, as “no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff’s allegations”. Carpet Group , 227 F.3d at 69.
In support of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, Bruce Simon has submitted an affidavit dated October 12, 2006 (w/Document No. 5), asserting that at the direction of his father, Sydney Simon, three separate entities were incorporated under Pennsylvania law as follows: in 1960, the Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. was incorporated, and from 1996 to the present, it has engaged in the business of selling hot dogs, french fries, related foodstuffs and beverages at the Oakland shop; in 1996, the Food Gallery was incorporated, and from 1996 through June of 2006, it operated a fast food restaurant selling hot dogs, french fries, related foodstuffs and beverages at the CMU shop; and in 1997, the Plum Original Inc. was incorporated, and from 1997 to the present, it has operated a fast food restaurant selling hot dogs, french fries, related foodstuffs and beverages (the “Plum shop”) (affidavit of Bruce Simon at ¶¶ 2-4).
Bruce Simon avers that since 1989, his father, Sydney Simon, has been physically unable to work at any of the three food shops, such that at all times relevant to this matter, his sister, Terry Campasano, has been responsible for the management of the Oakland shop, while he has primarily devoted his time to managing the Plum shop (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6); that unlike the Oakland shop and the Plum shop which are relatively large facilities, the CMU shop
3

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 13 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 4 of 10
was limited in size, such that its day-to-day business, including the hiring and firing of its employees, was conducted by on-site managers (Id. at ¶ 7); that neither Sydney Simon, nor Terry Campasano were involved in the day-to-day operations at the CMU shop (Id. at ¶ 9); and that he (Bruce Simon) had no involvement in the day-to-day operations or management at the CMU shop, except when he served as a stand-in there in September 2005 (due to the resignation of the on-site manager), at which time he discharged Anton Rumph (Id. at ¶¶ 9,10, 16).
With respect to the CMU shop, Bruce Simon avers that CMU was originally responsible for the general supervision of operations of all food purveyors at its food court, but in 2000, CMU contracted with Parkhurst Corporation (“Parkhurst”) to supervise businesses there (Id. at ¶ 12); that during the operation of the CMU shop, CMU and/or Parkhurst expressly retained the right to require the Food Gallery to terminate the services of any employee whose conduct was objectionable (Id. at ¶ 13); that in September 2005, Parkhurst’s on-site manager at the CMU food court, Jane Farringer, informed the Food Gallery by email that complaints had been received from CMU students, who believed that employees at the CMU shop were not providing service to customers and were engaging in non-food service related activities (Id. at ¶ 14); that upon receiving her email, Bruce Simon telephoned Ms. Farringer, who advised him that she would close down operations at the CMU shop unless immediate action was taken to remedy the students’ complaints (Id. at ¶ 15); and that due to the threatened termination of operations at the CMU shop, Bruce Simon went to the CMU shop, where he terminated the employment of Anton Rumph and five other counter employees who he believed were responsible for the students’ complaints (Id. at ¶ 16).
In his affidavit, Bruce Simon asserts that the Food Gallery has never been engaged in interstate commerce, as the foodstuffs used in its operation at the CMU shop were purchased from the Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and were sold to residents of CMU or the City of Pittsburgh (Id. at ¶ 8). He also avers that while the Food Gallery and the Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. shared common office space at the Oakland location, each entity maintained separate books
4

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 13 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 5 of 10
and records, filed separate state and federal income tax returns, maintained separate bank accounts, and operated as distinct corporate entities (Id. at ¶ 11).
In moving to dismiss the amended complaint, the defendants argue that the Food Gallery, the entity from which Anton Rumph was discharged, cannot be deemed an "employer" for purposes of Title VII. Under Title VII, the term “employer” means:
... a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person... 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). According to the defendants, the Food Gallery operations at the CMU shop did not encompass the requisite fifteen employees for each working day as required by Title VII. Significantly however, the EEOC has produced a list of Food Gallery employees during the period from July 2005 through November 2005, which shows that the Food Gallery employed thirty-six people, at least seventeen of whom were employed for five months or more.2 Notably, Bruce Simon makes no mention of the number of employees working each day at the CMU shop in his affidavit. Thus, based on the record before us, we cannot say that the Food Gallery failed to employ the requisite fifteen employees for purposes of Title VII. Furthermore, the EEOC insists that a factual question exists as to whether the Food Gallery and the Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. operate as a “single employer”. To determine if two distinct entities should be considered a single employer for purposes of Title VII, the Third the Circuit Court of Appeals has developed a three-part test. In Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72 (3d Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 1714 (2004), the Court stated: We ... will consider a company and its affiliates a single employer under Title VII (1) when a company has split itself into entities with less than fifteen employees intending to evade Title VII’s reach, or (2) when a parent company has directed the subsidiary’s discriminatory act of which the
2. See, Exhibit D to the EEOC’s appendix. 5

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 13 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 6 of 10
plaintiff is complaining... Absent either of the first two situations, we shall look to the factors courts use in deciding whether substantively to consolidate two or more entities in the bankruptcy context... [This] test at base seeks to determine whether two or more entities’ affairs are so interconnected that they collectively caused the alleged discriminatory employment practice. Id. at 85-86. The first two factors listed above do not appear to be applicable here. That is, the EEOC has not alleged, nor shown that the defendants split themselves into separate entities to evade Title VII’s requirement that “an employer” have at least fifteen employees. In addition, no evidence shows that the defendants have a parent-subsidiary relationship, or that one of them ordered the other to engage in a discriminatory act. As to the third factor above -- the interconnectedness of the entities -- the Court in Nesbit stated: “[it] rests on the degree of operational entanglement -- whether operations of the companies are so united that nominal employees of one company are treated interchangeably with those of another.” 347 F.3d at 87. As explained in Nesbit: Relevant operational factors include (1) the degree of unity between the entities with respect to ownership, management (both directors and officers), and business functions (e.g., hiring and personnel matters), (2) whether they present themselves as a single company such that third parties dealt with them as one unit, (3) whether a parent company covers the salaries, expenses, or losses of its subsidiary, and (4) whether one entity does business exclusively with the other. Id. As gleaned from another affidavit submitted by Bruce Simon dated June 1, 2006, the Food Gallery and the Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. are both owned by Sidney Simon, and both entities do business under the name “The Original Hot Dog Shop”.3 In his affidavits, Bruce Simon asserts that prior to the resignation of Addison Harrison as manager of the CMU shop, he
3. See, Exhibit C to the EEOC’s affidavit. 6

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 13 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 7 of 10
(Simon) was not involved in the operation or management of the CMU shop. However, Susan Kelly, an EEOC investigator, has presented an affidavit dated October 24, 2006, wherein she avers that during her investigation into Anton Rumph’s charge of discrimination in this matter, she interviewed Scott Berry, an employee of the defendants, who informed her that Bruce Simon made staffing decisions for the CMU shop.4 Scott Berry also advised Susan Kelly that while he was hired to work at the Oakland shop, he worked about one day a week at the CMU shop as an alternate manager to Mr. Harrison.5 Based on the foregoing, it appears that the defendants have a certain degree of “operational entanglement”, such that a factual question exists as to whether they operate as a single employer. Thus, the defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds that the Food Gallery failed to employ the requisite number of employees should be denied.
Similarly, the defendants’ argument that the Food Gallery cannot be deemed a Title VII “employer” because it was not engaged in interstate commerce should be denied at this juncture, as the record is not sufficiently developed. Bruce Simon asserts that the “foodstuffs used in the operation of the Food Gallery were purchased from the Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and all of the foodstuffs were sold to residents of CMU or the City of Pittsburgh.”6 However, the defendants do not claim that none of the foodstuffs used at the CMU shop came through interstate commerce. Further, it seems unlikely that only residents of CMU or Pittsburgh purchased food at the CMU shop, since numerous non-residents of Pittsburgh visit CMU or its students on a frequent basis. Although Bruce Simon avers that the Food Gallery has never been engaged in interstate commerce7, he does not make a similar claim as to the Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. Since a material issue of fact exists as to whether the defendants operated as a single
4. See, affidavit of Susan Kelly at ¶ 7, attached as Exhibit E to the EEOC’s appendix. 5. Id. 6. See, affidavit of Bruce Simon dated October 12, 2006 at ¶ 8. 7. Id.
7

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 13 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 8 of 10
employer, it would be premature to dismiss the amended complaint on grounds that the Food Gallery is not an “employer” for purposes of Title VII.
The defendants also argue that the amended complaint should be dismissed, as there is no basis upon which a class action may be maintained in this matter. According to the defendants, the purported class of Anton Rumph and “similarly situated African American employees” entails only six members, such that it fails to meet the numerosity requirement of F.R.Civ.P. 23.
Rule 23 mandates that before a suit may be certified as a class action, all four requirements of Rule 23(a), and one subsection of Rule 23(b) must be satisfied. Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220, 226 (3d Cir. 2001). Under Rule 23(a), the prerequisites to maintaining a class action are: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative party are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.
Significantly, “Rule 23 is not applicable to an enforcement action brought by the EEOC in its own name and pursuant to its authority under [Title VII] to prevent unlawful employment practices.” General Tel. Co. of the Northwest v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 323 (1980). Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated that the EEOC’s authority to bring a Title VII suit in its own name for the purpose of securing relief for a group of aggrieved individuals “is in no way dependent upon Rule 23.” Id. at 324. Thus, to the extent the defendants’ motion to dismiss is premised on the EEOC’s inability to satisfy Rule 23, it lacks merit.
In the alternative, the defendants argue that the amended complaint should be dismissed because CMU and Parkhurst, which are said to have supervised business at the CMU food court, are necessary and indispensable parties. We disagree.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 governs the determination of whether joinder of a party is compulsory. Rule 19, comprised of subdivisions (a) and (b), contemplates a two-
8

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 13 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 9 of 10
step analysis. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has explained:
A court must first determine whether a party should be joined if “feasible” under Rule 19(a). If the party should be joined but joinder is not feasible because it would destroy [subject matter jurisdiction], the Court must then determine whether the absent party is "indispensable" under Rule 19(b). If the party is indispensable, the action therefore cannot go forward.
Janney Montgomery Scott v. Shepard Niles, 11 F.3d 399, 404 (3d Cir. 1993). If it is determined
that an absent party is not "necessary" for a just adjudication of a case under Rule 19(a), the
Court need not consider the factors set forth in Rule 19(b). Id.
Rule 19(a) provides in pertinent part that:
A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest...
Thus, in this case, CMU and Parkhurst are "necessary” parties if, in their absence, (1) complete
relief cannot be accorded the present parties, or (2) they claim an interest in the matter, and
disposition of this action would prejudice their ability to protect their own interests, or any of the
present parties would be subject to a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations due to
their interests.
Under Rule 19(a)(1), we must first determine if complete relief can be accorded
among those who are already parties to this action. Angst v. Royal Maccabees Life Insurance
Co., 77 F.3d 701, 705 (3d Cir. 1996). “Completeness is determined on the basis of those persons
who are already parties, and not as between a party and the absent person whose joinder is
sought.” Id. In this case, it appears that complete relief can be accorded among the present
parties. That is, the race discrimination claims asserted against the defendants on behalf of
9

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 13 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 10 of 10

Anton Rumph and similarly situated African Americans may be determined in the absence of CMU and Parkhurst, neither of which was Mr. Rumph’s employer.
In addition, CMU and Parkhurst are not “necessary” parties under Rule 19(a)(2), as neither entity claims an interest in this matter. Under Rule 19(a)(2), “the interest relating to the subject of the action must be more than a mere financial interest.” Continental Casualty Co. v. Diversified Industries, Inc., 884 F.Supp. 937, 944 (E.D.Pa. 1995) (citations omitted). Rather, to satisfy the “interest” component of Rule 19(a)(2), “an absent party must have a legally protected interest, and not merely an interest in convenience.” Id. Here, the record fails to show that CMU or Parkhurst has a legally protected interest relating to this action. Hence, CMU and Parkhurst are not necessary parties under Rule 19(a), nor indispensable parties under Rule 19(b).
Therefore, it is recommended that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Document No. 5) be denied.
Within thirteen (13) days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the objections shall have seven (7) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 19, 2006

s/ ROBERT C. MITCHELL United States Magistrate Judge

10

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 18 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs
ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. d/b/a ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP, and FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. d/b/a ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 06-1243 ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2007, after the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the above-captioned case, and after the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and after a Report and Recommendation was issued by the United States Magistrate Judge, and the parties were granted thirteen days after being served with a copy to file written objections thereto, and upon consideration of the objections filed by the defendants which repeat the arguments raised and addressed in the Report and Recommendation, as well as the plaintiff’s response to those objections, and after independent review of the pleadings, and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which is adopted as the opinion of this Court, IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Document No. 5) is denied without prejudice to defendants’ right to raise the issues implicating the requisite elements to be established for plaintiff’s Title VII claim based upon a fully developed record.
Joy Flowers Conti United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 18 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 2 of 2

cc:

All Counsel of Record

Honorable Robert C. Mitchell United States Magistrate Judge

2

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-1 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. doing business as ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP, FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. doing business as ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-1243-JFC-RCM
District Judge Joy Flowers Conti/ Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell

CONSENT DECREE

INTRODUCTION A. This action was instituted by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission ("the EEOC") on September 19, 2006, against Defendants Original Hot Dog Shop,

Inc. d/b/a Original Hot Dog Shop and Food Gallery Original, Inc. db/a Original Hot Dog Shop to

enforce provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S .C. §2000e et seq.

("Title VII"). The EEOC alleged that Defendants subjected a former employee, Charging Party

Anton Rumph, and a class of African American employees, to disparate treatment based on the

basis of their race.

B. This Consent Decree is entered into by the EEOC and Original Hot Dog Shop,

Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. This Consent Decree shall be final and binding between the

EEOC and Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc., their

directors, officers, agents, assigns, and employees.

C. The EEOC and Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., and Food Gallery Original, Inc. do

hereby agree to the entry of this Consent Decree, which shall fully and finally resolve all claims

which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 06-1243. This Consent

\4502038.4

1

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-1 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 2 of 10

Decree shall not constitute an adjudication of or finding on the merits of the case, cannot be used as evidence in any other lawsuit or claim, and shall not be construed as an admission by Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. of any violation of Title VII.
CONSENT DECREE Upon consent of the parties to this action, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:
NON-DISCRIMINATION AND NON-RETALIATION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. 2. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. shall not engage in any employment practice at any of their locations which constitutes unlawful discrimination under Title VII. Specifically, Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. , O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Oliginal, Inc. shall not create, foster or tolerate a hostile work envirorunent based on race at any of their locations. 3. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. shall not engage in any employment practices which retaliate in any manner against any person, including but not limited to the class members of this litigation, because of that person' s opposition to any practice that is deemed to be unlawful under Title VII, or because of the filing of a charge, the giving of testimony or assistance, or the participation in any manner in any investigation, hearing or proceeding under Title VII. 4. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. , through its managers or agents with authority to act on its behalf, shall not divulge, directly or indirectly, to any employer or potential employer of Anton Rumph or any of the class members any of the facts or circumstances related to the charge of discrimination against Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. or any of the events relating to Anton Rumph' s

\4502038.4

2

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-1 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 3 of 10

or any of the class members' participation in the litigation of this matter, except that Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. may disclose such information if compelled by subpoena or other court order directing such disclosure.
5. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. , O.H .D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc . shall comply fully with all provisions of Title VII. Nothing in this Consent Decree, either by inclusion or exclusion, shall be construed to limit the obligations of Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. , O.H.D.S ., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. under Title VII or the EEOC ' s authority to process or litigate any charge of discrimination which may be filed against Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S ., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. in the future.
MONETARY RELIEF 6. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. , O.H.D.S. , Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc . agree
0 flit Hvtit!i<td ?S
to pay monetary relief to Anton Rumph in the amount of Five Thousand ~ Dollars and No Cents ($5,100.00). No portion of this amount paid to Mr. Rumph shall be considered compensation for lost wages, and so no withholdings shall be made from those funds provided that such withholding is not required by a determination by the Internal Revenue Service. Defendant will issue an IRS Form 1099 to Mr. Rumph with respect to payments made. Within fifteen (15) business days of the Court approval of this Consent Decree and the receipt of a Release (a copy attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "1 ") executed by Mr. Rumph, Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc ., O.H.D.S. , Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. will mail the check for monetary relief to Mr. Anton Rumph, 219 S. Fairmont Street, Apt. #4, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H .D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. will mail a photocopy of the check to the EEOC, to the attention of M . Jean Clickner, Senior Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 300, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, within five days ofthe date ofmailing ofthe check to Mr. R umph.

\4 5020 38.4

3

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-1 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 4 of 10

7. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. agree

to pay monetary relief to Kimton Ray Jefferson in the amount of Eight Hundred Dollars and No

Cents ($800.00). No portion of this amount paid to Mr. Jefferson shall be considered

compensation for lost wages, and so no withholdings shall be made from those funds provided

that such withholding is not required by a determination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Defendant will issue an IRS Form 1099 to Mr. Jefferson with respect to payments made. Within

fifteen (15) business days of the Court approval of this Consent Decree and the receipt of a

Release (a copy attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "2") executed by Mr. Jefferson, Original ·d ot.d yY1 (,<

Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. will mail the check-for ~'' {l ' ljl>•

A\ IY'et.. /1elf f:. '

5't.; :n

VtlC\'j_ he

A ve/

Ayf. 'b 31-

1\ V'
0'

~~

,.,.~, 0

monetary relief to Mr. Kimton Jeff~, c/o Slwila Jones Jefferson, 3403 Firelight Lane, Apt..-A,
·-pJ,,fadetrf,(,·,.,P4 tci/4'-/. ~c )
Baltimore, MD 21207. Original'FtofDog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original,

0/

Y"\.'(.'.0(er~es

.,
·

Inc. will mail a photocopy of the check to the EEOC, to the attention ofM. Jean Clickner, Senior ~

Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 300,

Pittsburgh, PA 15222, within five days of the date of mailing of the check to Mr. Jefferson.

8. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. agree

to pay monetary relief to Jamrnel J. Awudu the amount of Eight Hundred Dollars and No Cents

($800.00). No portion of this amount paid to Mr. Awudu shall be considered compensation for

lost wages, and so no withholdings shall be made from those funds provided that such

withholding is not required by a determination by the Internal Revenue Service. Defendant will

issue an IRS Form 1099 to Mr. Awudu with respect to payments made. Within fifteen (15)

business days of the Court approval of this Consent Decree and the receipt of a Release (a copy

attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "3") executed by Mr. Awudu, Original Hot Dog Shop,

Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. will mail the check for monetary relief to

\4 5020 38.4

4

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-1 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 5 of 10

Mr. Jammel Awudu, 849 Torchwood Drive, Deland, FL 32724. Original Hot Dog Shop, Me. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. will mail a photocopy of the check to the EEOC, to the attention ofM. Jean Clickner, Senior Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 300, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, within five days of the date of mailing of the check to Mr. Awudu.
9. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. agree to pay monetary relief to Javon Daymon in the amount of Eight Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($800.00). No portion of this amount paid to Mr. Daymon shall be considered compensation for lost wages, and so no withholdings shall be made from those funds provided that such withholding is not required by a determination by the Internal Revenue Service. Defendant will issue an IRS Form 1099 to Mr. Daymon with respect to payments made. Within fifteen (15) business days of the Court approval of this Consent Decree and the receipt of a Release (a copy attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "4") executed by Mr. Daymon, Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. will mail the check for monetary relief to Mr. Javon Daymon, 2601 Duquesne Place Drive, Apt. #108, Duquesne, Pennsylvania 15110. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. will mail a photocopy of the check to the EEOC, to the attention of M; Jean Clickner, Senior Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 300, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, within five days ofthe date ofmailing ofthe check to Mr. Daymon.
POSTING OF NOTICE 10. Within ten (1 0) business days after entry of this Decree, Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. shall post same-sized copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit "5" to this Decree on all bulletin boards usually used by O.H.D.S., Inc. for communicating with employees at the restaurant at 3901 Forbes Avenue9 Pittsburgh,

\4502038 .4

5

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-1 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 6 of 10
Pennsylvania (Forbes Avenue location). The Notice shall remain posted for four (4) years from the date of entry of this Decree. Counsel for O.H.D.S., Inc. shall provide a copy of the Notice, and an indication of the date and location(s) of its posting, to the EEOC Pittsburgh Office, attention M . Jean Clickner, Senior Ttial Attorney, within ten (1 0) days of the posting. O.H.D.S., Inc. shall permit a representative of the EEOC to enter its premises for purposes of verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time dming normal business hours without prior notice. O.H.D.S., Inc. shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Should the posted copies become defaced, removed, marred, or otherwise illegible, O.H.D.S., Inc. agrees to immediately post a readable copy in the same manner as heretofore specified.
RECORD KEEPING 11. For a period of four (4) years following entry of this Decree, Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D .S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. shall maintain and make available for EEOC records of each complaint of any incident of racial discrimination of which it receives notice under its policy occurring at any of their locations. Each such report shall indicate the date the complaint of racial discrimination was made, who made it, what was alleged, and what actions Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and/or Food Gallery Original, Inc. took to resolve the matter. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. shall also make records of all actions it takes to prevent racial discrimination at their restaurant during the duration of this Decree. By designating an incident or complaint as "an incident of racial discrimination or harassment" Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. do not admit that such incident or complaint constitutes unlawful conduct under Title VII.

\4 502038.4

6

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-1 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 7 of 10

12. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S ., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. shall make all documents or records refened to in Paragraph 11, above, available for inspection and copying within ten (10) business days after the EEOC so requests in writing.
13. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed to limit any obligation Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. may otherwise have to maintain records under Title VII or any other law or regulation.
REPORTING 14. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc, O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. shall furnish to the EEOC the following written semi-annual reports for a period of four (4) years following entry of this Decree. The first report shall be due six (6) months after entry of the Decree. The final report shall be due forty-eight (48) months after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain: a summary of the information recorded by Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. pursuant to Paragraph 11, including the name of the complainant, the allegation of the complaint and the action taken by Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. in response to said complaint.
TRAINING 15. During the term of this Decree, Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. shall provide training on the requirements of Title VII to all appropriate supervisory and management personnel which training shall be premised upon the information contained in documentation to be provided by the EEOC regarding conducting a prompt and effective investigation into allegations, complaints, or charges of employment discrimination. This documentation will include information as to what constitutes unlawful harassment in the workplace, how to keep the company free of any such form of discrimination, and what constitutes unlawful retaliation.

\45020 38.4

7

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-1 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 8 of 10
16. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. shall obtain the documentation and/or information to be used in the training of the supervisory and management personnel from the EEOC.
17. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. agrees to provide the EEOC with any and all copies of pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written materials provided to the participants of the training sessions.
18. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. shall certify the EEOC in writing within ten (1 0) business days after the training sessions required by Paragraph 15 above have occurred that the training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended. Such certification shall include: (i) the dates, location and duration of the training session; (ii) a copy of the registry of attendance, which shall include the name and position of each person in attendance.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 19. In the event that either party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance within ten (10) days of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party thirty (30) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within thirty (30) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 20. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys fees.

\450203 8.4

8

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-1 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 9 of 10
21. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, or officers of Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. in their capacities as representatives, agents, directors and officers of Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc., and not in their individual capacities. This paragraph shall not be construed as placing any limit on remedies available to the Court in the event that any party to this Decree is found to be in contempt for a violation of this Decree.
22. This Consent Decree shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 06-CV-01243 (W.D. PA).
23. This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and shall continue to be in effect for a period of four (4) years . Any application by any party to modify or vacate this Consent Decree during such period shall be made by motion to the Court on no less than thirty (30) days notice to the other party.
24. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case in order to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree.
25. The Clerk of the District Court is hereby directed to send a file-stamped copy of this Consent Decree to counsel of record.

\4 502 038.4

9

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-1 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 10 of 10

ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. O.H.D.S., INC. AND FOOD GALLERY ORIG

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
RONALD S. COOPER GENERAL COUNSEL

JAMES L. LEE

../

DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL

~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL

JHtEtE'i7M~,i.;?V }£h Cf/14
REGIONAL ATTORNEY

SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY

IT IS SO ORDERED:
BY THE COURT:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ JOY FLOWERS CONTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATE:_ _ _ _ _ __

\450203 84

10

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-2 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-1243-JFC-RCM
District Judge Joy Flowers Conti/ Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell

ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. doing business as ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP, FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. doing business as ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP,

Original Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs.

RELEASE For and in consideration of the terms of the Consent Decree entered into by the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission and Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. and Food Gallery

Original, Inc., in C.A. No. 06-1243 (W.D. PA) I, Anton Rumpf, do hereby waive, remit, release

and forever discharge Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original,

Inc., its subsidiaries, affiliates, and assigns, and all of its officers, directors, agents, and

employees, and all persons, partnerships, corporations or other entities who might be claimed to

be jointly or severally liable with it, from the claims, demands, and causes of action which were

asserted in the Complaint in EEOC v. Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. and Food Gallery Original,

Inc., Civil Action No. 06-1243 (WD.PA). Specifically, this release constitutes a complete and

final settlement and resolution of all claims of discrimination on the basis of race that were

asserted by the EEOC in this action under Title VII, with respect to the time period cover by the

EEOC's complaint.

I further warrant that this Release is freely executed in return for the consideration set

forth in the above-referenced Consent Decree, in the amount of $5,100.00 and that I am legally

competent to execute this Release and accept full responsibility therefore. I understand that this

EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-2 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
Release is given in compromise of a disputed claim, and is therefore not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. , O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc.

ANTON RUMPF

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

)

SS:

COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY

)

On this, the __ day of

, 2007, before me personally appeared

ANTON RUMPF known to me to be the person who executed the same as his free act or deed.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 2007.
Notary Public My commission expires:

Notary Public

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-3 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-1243-JFC-RCM
District Judge Joy Flowers Conti/ Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell

ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. doing business as ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP, FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. doing business as ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP,

Original Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs. RELEASE

For and in consideration of the terms of the Consent Decree entered into by the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission and Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. and Food Gallery

Original, Inc., in C.A. No. 06-1243 (W.D. PA) I, Kimton Ray Jefferson, do hereby waive, remit,

release and forever discharge Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery

Original, Inc., its subsidiaries, affiliates, and assigns, and all of its officers, directors, agents, and

employees, and all persons, partnerships, corporations or other entities who might be claimed to

be jointly or severally liable with it, from the claims, demands, and causes of action which were

asserted in the Complaint in EEOC v. Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. and Food Gallery Original,

Inc., Civil Action No. 06-1243 (WD.PA). Specifically, this release constitutes a complete and

final settlement and resolution of all claims of discrimination on the basis of race that were

asserted by the EEOC in this action under Title VII, with respect to the time period cover by the

EEOC's complaint.

I further warrant that this Release is freely executed in return for the consideration set

forth in the above-referenced Consent Decree, in the amount of $800.00 and that I am legall y

EXHIBIT 2

\4504063.1

1

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-3 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
competent to execute this Release and accept full responsibility therefore. I understand that this Release is given in compromise of a disputed claim, and is therefore not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. , O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this __ day of April, 2007.
KIMTON RAY JEFFERSON
Witnessed this_ day of April, 2007, by M. Jean Clickner, Esquire

\45 04063.1

2

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-4 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-1243-JFC-RCM
District Judge Joy Flowers Conti/ Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell

ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. doing business as ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP, FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. doing business as ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP,

Original Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs.

RELEASE For and in consideration of the terms of the Consent Decree entered into by the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission and Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. and Food Gallery

Original, Inc., in C.A. No. 06-1243 (W.O. PA) I, Jammel J. Awudu, do hereby waive, remit,

release and forever discharge Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery

Original, Inc., its subsidiaries, affiliates, and assigns, and all of its officers, directors, agents, and

employees, and all persons, partnerships, corporations or other entities who might be claimed to

be jointly or severally liable with it, from the claims, demands, and causes of action which were

asserted in the Complaint in EEOC v. Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. and Food Gallery Original,

Inc., Civil Action No. 06-1243 (WD.PA) . Specifically, this release constitutes a complete and

final settlement and resolution of all claims of discrimination on the basis of race that were

asserted by the EEOC in this action under Title VII, with respect to the time period cover by the

EEOC's complaint.

I further warrant that this Release is freely executed in return for the consideration set

forth in the above-referenced Consent Decree, in the amount of $800.00 and that I am legally

competent to execute this Release and accept full responsibility therefore. I understand that this

EXHIBIT 3

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-4 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
Release is given in compromise of a disputed claim, and is therefore not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc.

JAMMEL J. AWUDU

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

)

SS:

COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY

)

On this, the __ day of

, 2007, before me personally appeared

JAMMEL J. AWUDU known to me to be the person who executed the same as his free act or

deed.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ day of - -- -- -' 2007.
Notary Public My commission expires:

Notary Public

\450407 1. I

2

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-5 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-1243-JFC-RCM
District Judge Joy Flowers Conti/ Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell

ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. doing business as ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP, FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. doing business as ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP,

Original Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs.

RELEASE

For and in consideration of the terms of the Consent Decree entered into by the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission and Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. and Food Gallery

Original, Inc., in C.A. No. 06-1243 (W.D. PA) I, Javon Daymon, do hereby waive, remit, release

and forever discharge Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original,

Inc., its subsidiaries, affiliates, and assigns, and all of its officers, directors, agents, and

employees, and all persons, partnerships, corporations or other entities who might be claimed to

be jointly or severally liable with it, from the claims, demands, and causes of action which were

asserted in the Complaint in EEOC v. Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. and Food Gallery Original,

Inc., Civil Action No. 06-1243 (WD.PA). Specifically, this release constitutes a complete and

final settlement and resolution of all claims of discrimination on the basis of race that were

asserted by the EEOC in this action under Title VII, with respect to the time period cover by the

EEOC's complaint.

I further warrant that this Release is freely executed in return for the consideration set

forth in the above-referenced Consent Decree, in the amount of $800.00 and that I am legally

competent to execute this Release and accept full responsibility therefore. I understand that this

EXHIBIT 4

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-5 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
Release is given in compromise of a disputed claim, and is therefore not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc., O.H.D.S., Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc.

JAVON DAYMON

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

)

)

SS:

COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY

)

On this, the __ day of

, 2007, before me personally appeared

JAVON DAYMON known to me to be the person who executed the same as his free act or deed.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ day of - - -- - - ' 2007.
Notary Public My commission expires:

Notary Public

\4 504074 .1

2

Case 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM Document 32-6 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 1

EXffiBITS

NOTICE TO ALL ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP EMPLOYEES

This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in EEOC v. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc., Civil Action Number 06-CV-1243 (W.D. PA.), resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U .S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., as amended, ("Title VII"), prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment based upon race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Title VII further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves of the rights under Title VII by engaging in protected activities, such as filing a charge of discrimination and/or testifying or participating in a Commission investigation. The EEOC is the federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination. The EEOC has the authority to bring lawsuits in federal court to enforce Title VII.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. subjected African American employees to discrimination based on their race in violation of Title VII. Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. deny these allegations.

To resolve the case, Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. and the EEOC have entered in to a Consent Decree which provided, among other things, that with respect to their Original Hot Dog Shop restaurants: (1) Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. paid monetary relief; (2) Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. will not discriminate on the basis of race in the future; (3) Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. will not retaliate against any person because he or she opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII, filed a Title VII charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree; and, (4) Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original, Inc. will train supervisory and managerial employees regarding racial harassment and Original Hot Dog Shop, Inc. and Food Gallery Original , Inc.' s policy prohibiting racial discrimination.

If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (800) 6694000. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE

This Notice must remain posted for four years from the date below and must not be

altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice

or compliance with its terms may be directed to the: Regional Attorney, EEOC

Philadelphia District Office, 21 South 5th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

L~ 1 ~ - Opfpoi(rtjunJitYv)~ ;~ l
Commission
~~ J.- "-'W~i --- DATED:....loL..:.dp-'F--=- f--+-)

_j _j
Original o D Food G~llery gina!, Inc.
cz DATED ~ :2007

\4502038.4

11

 
 CM/ECF - pawd - Docket Report

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?894689991111834-L_...

CLOSED, MAG
U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. et al Assigned to: Joy Flowers Conti Referred to: Robert C. Mitchell Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 09/19/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by Jacqueline H. McNair Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 South Fifth Street Suite 400, The Bourse Building Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2666 Email: Jacqueline.McNair@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith A. O'Boyle Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 South Fifth Street Suite 400, The Bourse Building Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2666 Email: Judith.Oboyle@EEOC.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M. Jean Clickner Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1001 Liberty Avenue Suite 300, Liberty Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 644-6439 Firm: (412) 644-4935 Email: jean.clickner@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

1 of 7

6/6/2007 11:38 AM

CM/ECF - pawd - Docket Report
Defendant ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. doing business as ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP
Defendant FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. doing business as ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOP
ThirdParty Plaintiff ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC.
ThirdParty Plaintiff FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC.
V. ThirdParty Defendant CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY TERMINATED: 03/08/2007 ThirdParty Defendant PARKHURST CORPORATION TERMINATED: 04/09/2007

Date Filed

#

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?894689991111834-L_...
represented by Stephen J. Laidhold McGuire Woods 625 Liberty Avenue 23rd Floor, Dominion Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3142 (412) 667-6000 Email: slaidhold@mcguirewoods.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen J. Laidhold (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen J. Laidhold (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen J. Laidhold (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William James Rogers Thomson, Rhodes & Cowie 1010 Two Chatham Center Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 232-3400 Email: wjr@trc-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Docket Text

2 of 7

6/6/2007 11:38 AM

CM/ECF - pawd - Docket Report

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?894689991111834-L_...

09/19/2006
09/19/2006 09/19/2006 09/25/2006 10/13/2006 10/13/2006
10/13/2006 10/16/2006 10/16/2006
10/17/2006 10/27/2006

1 COMPLAINT against ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. , filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet # 2 Summons as to Sidney Simons, President of Food Gallery Original, Inc.# 3 Summons as to Sidney Simons, President of Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc.)(jv) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
Summons Issued as to ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC.. (jv) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
2 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(Clickner, M.) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
3 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 9/22/06. (smc ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen J. Laidhold on behalf of ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. (Laidhold, Stephen) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
5 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint by ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Bruce Simon in support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint)(Laidhold, Stephen) Modified title text and text to describe attachment on 10/16/2006 (jsp). Modified on 10/16/2006 (jsp, ). (Entered: 10/13/2006)
6 BRIEF in Support re 5 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC.. (Laidhold, Stephen) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
7 ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule re 5 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Response to the Motion to Dismiss is due by 11/6/2006. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 10/16/2006. (mlb) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE. re 5 MOTION to Dismiss ERROR: Party did not file disclosure statement as required pursuant L.R. 7.1.1 CORRECTION: Attorney advised to file statement within 7 days. This message is for informational purposes only., CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE.. ERROR: Attachments not described correctly or no description was provided. CORRECTION: Attachment description corrected. THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT NEED TO BE RE-FILED. This message is for informational purposes only. Disclosure Statement due by 10/25/2006. (jsp, ) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
8 Disclosure Statement identifying None as Corporate Parent, by ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC.. (Laidhold, Stephen) Modified text on 10/18/2006 (jsp). (Entered: 10/17/2006)
9 SUMMONS/Return of Service Returned Executed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. served on 9/29/2006, answer due 10/19/2006. (Clickner, M.) (Entered: 10/27/2006)

3 of 7

6/6/2007 11:38 AM

CM/ECF - pawd - Docket Report

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?894689991111834-L_...

10/27/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006
11/06/2006 11/08/2006
11/08/2006 12/19/2006 12/22/2006 12/27/2006 01/03/2007

10 SUMMONS/Return of Service Returned Executed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. served on 9/29/2006, answer due 10/19/2006. (Clickner, M.) Modified on 10/30/2006 (jv). (Entered: 10/27/2006)
Update Answer Deadline: Answer due from FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. on 10/19/2006 (jv) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE. re 10 Summons/Returned Returned Executed ERROR: Docket entry date for service did not match actual document which made the Answer deadline incorrect CORRECTION: Corrected Docket entry and updated Answer deadline for FOOD GALLARY ORIGINAL INC. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
11 RESPONSE to Motion re 5 MOTION to Dismiss filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service # 2 Appendix # 3 Certificate of Service)(Clickner, M.)Document Removed from Public View and redocked at 12 Memorandum in Opposition. Modified on 11/8/2006 (jv). (Entered: 11/06/2006)
12 MEMORANDUM by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION in Opposition to 5 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate to Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss # 2 Appendix to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss # 3 Certificate of Service to Appendix). (jv) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE. ERROR: re 11 Response to Motion Wrong event selected. CORRECTION: Re-docketed as 12 Memorandum In Opposition to Defendant's 5 Motion to Dismiss. This message is for informational purposes only. Please Note that Certificate of Service's are to made part of the Main Document. Thank You. (jv) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: recommending that 5 Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC. and FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. be denied. Objections to R&R due by 1/5/2007. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 12/19/2006. (mlb) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
14 OBJECTIONS to Magistrate Mitchell's Report and Recommendations by ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC.. (Laidhold, Stephen) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE. re 14 Objections To ERROR: Proposed Order was made part of main document. CORRECTION: Attorney advised that in future proposed orders are to be made attachments to the main document. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
15 OBJECTIONS to Magistrate Mitchell's 13 Report and Recommendations, by ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Laidhold, Stephen) (Entered: 01/03/2007)

4 of 7

6/6/2007 11:38 AM

CM/ECF - pawd - Docket Report

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?894689991111834-L_...

01/04/2007 01/31/2007 01/31/2007
02/01/2007 02/01/2007 02/06/2007 02/07/2007 02/08/2007 02/09/2007 02/21/2007 02/27/2007
03/07/2007

16 RESPONSE to Defendants' Objection to MJ Mitchell's Report & Recommendation filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Clickner, M.) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
17 First MOTION for Discovery to Commence Discovery by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1)(Clickner, M.) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
18 ORDER denying 5 Motion to Dismiss, adopting Report and Recommendations re 13 Report and Recommendations. The defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Document No. 5) is denied without prejudice to defendants' right to raise the issues implicating the requisite elements to be established for plaintiff's Title VII claim based upon a fully developed record. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 1/31/07. (smc ) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
19 NOTICE of Hearing: Initial Status Conference set for 3/13/2007 at 9:30 AM before Robert C. Mitchell. (mlb) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Court's Order or notice on the matter. ORDER denying 17 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 2/1/2007. (mlb) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
20 DEFENDANTS' ANSWER to Amended Complaint AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC..(Laidhold, Stephen) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
21 THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY, PARKHURST CORPORATION, filed by ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Laidhold, Stephen) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
Summons Issued as to CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY, Parkhurst Corporation. (ept) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
22 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Clickner, M.) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
23 PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN pursuant to Rule 26(f) by ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC..(Laidhold, Stephen) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
24 SUMMONS/Return of Service Returned Executed by ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC.. CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY served on 2/21/2007, answer due 3/13/2007; PARKHURST CORPORATION served on 2/16/2007, answer due 3/8/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Laidhold, Stephen) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
25 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. (Laidhold, Stephen) (Entered: 03/07/2007)

5 of 7

6/6/2007 11:38 AM

CM/ECF - pawd - Docket Report

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?894689991111834-L_...

03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/13/2007
03/22/2007 04/09/2007 04/19/2007 04/23/2007 04/27/2007

26 Disclosure Statement identifying None as Corporate Parent, by PARKHURST CORPORATION. (Rogers, William) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
27 Notice Opting Out of Arbitration by PARKHURST CORPORATION.(Rogers, William) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
28 MOTION to Dismiss re 21 Third Party Complaint by PARKHURST CORPORATION. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rogers, William) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
29 BRIEF in Support re 28 MOTION to Dismiss re 21 Third Party Complaint filed by PARKHURST CORPORATION. (Rogers, William) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
30 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell: Status Conference held on 3/13/2007. Discovery due by 7/15/2007. Defendants' Response to Third-Party Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 28 due by 3/31/2007. Reply to Response due by 4/10/2007. Status Conference set for 5/15/2007 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell. (Court Reporter none.) (spc) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
31 NOTICE OF CONSENT by Third Party Plaintiff, ORIGINAL HOT DOG SHOPS, INC., FOOD GALLERY ORIGINAL, INC. of The GRANTING of Third Party Defendant's (PARKHUST CORPORATION) 28 MOTION to Dismiss re 21 Third Party Complaint (jv) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Court's ORDER or notice on the matter. Order granting unopposed 28 Motion to Dismiss 21 Third-Party Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 4/9/2007. (mlb) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
32 CONSENT DECREE by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 # 2 Exhibit 2 # 3Exhibit 3 # 4 Exhibit 4 # 5 Exhibit 5)(Clickner, M.), Corrected Attachments by describing them. Modified on 4/23/2007 (jv). (Entered: 04/19/2007)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE. re 32 Consent Decree. ERROR: Attachments not described. CORRECTION: Attachment description applied. This message is for informational purposes only. (jv) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
33 Approved Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 4/24/07. (smc ) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

6 of 7

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:

06/06/2007 12:39:21

hs0328 Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:06-cv-01243-JFC-RCM

6/6/2007 11:38 AM

CM/ECF - pawd - Docket Report

Billable Pages:

4

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?894689991111834-L_...

Cost:

0.32

7 of 7

6/6/2007 11:38 AM