•

• ORIGINAL

I A. LUIS LUCERO, JR., REGIONAL ATTORNEY BARBARA J. STANDAL, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY

u.s. COURTS

2 ZULEMA HINOJOS-FALL, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

01 r,PR I I MilO: 2 I

3 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104

4 TEL: (206) 220-6915

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

13

14

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

15 COMMISSION,

)

)

16

Plaintiff,

)

)

17

v.

)

)

18 RALPH'S, INC., d/b/a

)

SHERMAN IGA, and IGA, INC.

)

19

)

)

20

Defendants.

)

--------------------------~)
21

CIV 0 '1 - 0 1 5 'r" - N- EJL
CIVIL ACTION NO. COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

22

NATURE OF THE ACTION

23

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

24 Rights Act of 1991 to correct ongoing unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex,

25 constructive discharge and retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to Kimberly Pierce, Barbara

26 Munson and Jo Munson. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that Ralph's,

27 Inc., d/b/a Sherman IGA and IGA, Inc., ("Defendants") subjected Ms. Kimberly Pierce, Ms. Barbara

COMPLAINT - PAGE I

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office
Federal Office Building 909 First Aver'IUe, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephorle (206) 220-6883
1. Fax (206) 220-6911
TDO (206) 220-6882

• •

1 Munson and Ms. Jo Munson to an ongoing hostile work environment, sexual harassment, retaliation

2 and constructive discharge. Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief, including pecuniary and

3 nonpecuniary compensatory damages and punitive damages.

4

5

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6

1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343

7 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII

8 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. sections 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"),

9 and Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. §1981a.

10

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

II jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District ofIdaho.

12

13

PARTIES

14

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the

15 agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and

16 enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(I) of

17 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1).

18

4. At all relevant times, Defendants Ralph's, Inc., d/b/a Sherman IGA and IGA, Inc.,

19 have been corporations continuously doing business in the State ofIdaho, and have continuously had

20 at least 15 employees.

21

5. At all relevant times, Defendants Ralph's, Inc., d/b/a! Sherman IGA and IGA, Inc.,

22 have each continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the

23 meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. §§2000e-(b), (g) and (h).

24

25

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

26

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Kimberly Pierce, Barbara

27 Munson and Jo Munson filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by

COMPLAINT - PAGE 2

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office Federal Office BUilding
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104·1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TOO (206) 220-6882

•

•

1 Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been fulfilled.

2

7. Defendants have engaged in ongoing unlawful employment practices at its Idaho

3 facilities in violation of §§ 703(a) and 704(a) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and -3(a). Ms.

4 Kimberly Pierce was continually employed by Defendants from April 1995 through August 1999.

5 Ms. Barbara Munson was continually employed by Defendants from June 1991 to March 2000. Ms.

6 Jo Munson was continually employed by Defendants from September 1999 to October 1999.

7 Throughout their employment, Ms. Kimberly Pierce, Ms. Barbara Munson and Ms. Jo Munson

8 continually suffered sexual harassment in a work environment in which their immediate supervisor

9 and store owner made sexually charged comments. Defendants affected the terms and conditions of

10 Ms. Kimberly Pierce, Ms. Barbara Munson and Ms. Jo Munson's employment by sUbjecting each of

II them to ongoing harassment based on sex, retaliation and constructive discharge.

12

8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive

13 Ms. Kimberly Pierce, Ms. Barbara Munson and Ms. Jo Munson of equal employment opportunities

14 and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because oftheir sex.

15

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were

16 intentional.

17

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done

18 with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Kimberly Pierce,

19 Ms. Barbara Munson and Ms. Jo Munson.

20

21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

22

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

23

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers, successors, agents,

24 assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any

25 employment practices which discriminate on the bases of sex.

26

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

27 provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past

COMPLAINT - PAGE 3

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office Federal Office BUilding
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104·1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TOO (206) 220-6882

• •

I and present unlawful employment practices.

2

C. Order Defendants to make whole Ms. Kimberly Pierce, Ms. Barbara Munson and Ms.

3 Jo Munson by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be

4 determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful

5 employment practices.

6

D. Order Defendants to make whole Ms. Kimberly Pierce, Ms. Barbara Munson and Ms.

7 J0 Munson by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the

8 unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including past and future out-of-

9 pocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.

10

E. Order Defendants to make whole Ms. Kimberly Pierce, Ms. Barbara Munson and Ms.

11 Jo Munson by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the

12 unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including without limitation emotional pain,

13 suffering, and loss of enjoyment oflife, in amounts to be determined at trial.

14

F. Order Defendants to pay Ms. Kimberly Pierce, Ms. Barbara Munson and Ms. Jo

15 Munson punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in

16 amounts to be determined at trial.

17

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

18 interest.

19

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

20

21

JURy TRIAL DEMAND

22

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions offact raised by its complaint.

23

24

25

26

27

COMPLAINT - PAGE 4

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office Federal Office BUilding
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104·1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TOO (206) 220·6882

• •

T 1

DATED this ~ay Of---L~:::;Yr::+.:::.L..CJj(~(c.-.:.L==-=---_, 2001.

2 A. LUIS LUCERO, JR.

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

Regional Attorney

Associate General Counsel

3

BARBARA 1. STANDAL

4 Supervisory Trial Attorney

5 ZULEMAHINOJOS-FALL Senior Trial Attorney
6

7 BY:_--";~~~::-fC=-----~L-t!24:LL-.

8 EQU EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

CO MISSION

COMMISSION

9 Seattle District Office

Office of the General Counsel

909 First Avenue, Suite 400

1801 "L" Street, N.W.

10 Seattle, Washington 98104

Washington, D.C. 20507

Telephone (206) 220-6915

11

Attorneys for Plaintiff

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COMPLAINT - PAGE 5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office
Federal Office Building 909 Firsl Avenue, SUite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone (206) 220-6883
Fax (206) 220-6911 TOO (206) 220-6882

•

• ORIGINAL

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I served CIVIL COVER SHEET, SUMMONS and COMPLAINT to the party(s) listed below:

Christine M. Weaver MILLER, DEVLIN, McLEAN & WEAVER 201 W. North River Drive, Suite 500 Spokane, WA 99201-2266

xby the following indicated method or methods: by mailing a copy thereof in a sealed, first-class postage-paid envelope, addressed to the attomey(s) listed above, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at Seattle, Washington, on the date set forth below.

D by hand delivering a copy thereof to the attomey(s) for Defendant listed above, on the date set forth below.

D be sending via overnight courier a copy thereof in a sealed, postage paid envelope, addressed to the attomey(s) listed above, on the date set forth below.

D

by faxing a copy thereof to the attomey(s) at the fax number(s) shown above, on

the date set fourth below.

9~ Of_"-~'--,J.f· DATED This

Date

F--"-->'''-\,----, 2001.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: 1206) 220-6883 Facsimile: 1206) 220-6911 TDD: 1206) 220-6882

 
 •
1

•

Christine M. Weaver, ISB #5061 Miller, Devlin, McLean & Weaver, P.S. 201 W. North River Drive, Suite 500 Spokane, WA 99201-2266 (509) 327-5591
Attorneys for Intervenors Pierce and Munson

•
U.S. DiSTRICT COURT U.S. BANKRUPlCY CO;'7UR~T;:---­
DISTRICT OF IDM;O--'
APR 26 2001
----__ M~ ______
LODGED ~ED _ __

U. S. COURTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

JUl162001
RECC,~"'iD\/;j_::i.".:'i_C.n.·~_s ~ ~~
CLEHK IDAHO

* * *
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

NO. CV 61- 0/5'7 -N-tE:JL

KIMBERLY PIERCE and BARBARA MUNSON,

INTERVENORS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Intervenors,

v.

RALPH'S INC., an Idaho corporation d/b/a SHERMAN IGA, WILLIAM PETERSON and JANE DOE PETERSON, individually and as a marital community, and IGA, INC., a foreign corporation,

Defendants.

* * *

INTERVENORS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES . 1

• •
COME NOW Intervenors, by and through their attorney, Christine M. Weaver of Miller, Devlin, McLean & Weaver, P.S., and for complaint against Defendants allege as follows:
I. PARTIES 1.1 Intervenor Kimberly Pierce (hereinafter Pierce) was at all times material to this action a resident of Kootenai County, State ofIdaho. 1.2 Intervenor Barbara Munson (hereinafter Munson) was at all times material to this action a resident of Kootenai County, State ofIdaho. 1.3 Defendant Ralph's Inc. (hereinafter Sherman IGA) is and was at all times material to this action, upon belief, an Idaho corporation doing business as Sherman Avenue IGA in Kootenai County, State ofIdaho. 1.4 Defendant William Peterson (hereinafter Peterson) was at all times material to this action a resident of Kootenai County, State ofIdaho. 1.5 Defendant IGA, Inc., is and was at all times material to this action upon belief a foreign corporation doing business in Kootenai County, State ofIdaho.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2.1 All actions by manager, supervisors, employees, owners, or representatives of Defendants Sherman IGA and IGA, Inc. were committed in the course and scope of employment. 2.2 Pierce was employed by Defendants Sherman IGA and IGA, Inc. in or about April 1995. She was continually employed by Sherman IGA and IGA, Inc. until her resignation in or about August 1999. 2.3 Pierce was originally hired as a manager in the Deli Department and she retained that position until her resignation.
INTERVENORS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 2

• •
2.4 Munson was employed by Shennan IGA and IGA, Inc. in or about June 1991. She was continually employed by Shennan IGA and IGA, Inc. until her resignation in or about March 2000.
2.5 Munson was originally hired for the position of checker, but was promoted to manager ofthe Deli Department in or about September 1994.
2.6 In or about September 1999, Munson was again promoted to a supervisory role for the Deli and Bakery Departments simultaneously only after Pierce was forced to resign her position as Deli manager, due to the continued sexual harassment by Defendant Peterson. Munson received no additional compensation for her added duties.
2.7 During Pierce and Munson's employment, Defendant Peterson was their immediate supervisor as well as the owner of the Shennan IGA store.
2.8 Throughout Pierce and Munson's employment, Defendant Peterson made sexually charged comments to them.
2.9 Throughout Pierce and Munson's employment, Defendant Peterson made sexual comments regarding their anatomy, the anatomy of other co-workers, as well as the anatomy of female customers. (These comments contributed to and/or created a hostile work environment.)
2.10 Pierce and Munson notified Defendant Peterson separately and on several occasions that his inappropriate sexual comments bothered them and that they wanted the comments to stop. Defendant Peterson continued to make sexually charged comments and would often laugh about their objections.
2.11 Defendant Peterson propositioned Munson for sex on occasion.
INTERvENORS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 3

• •
2.12 On his regularly scheduled days off, Defendant Peterson would call the store claiming to check on the store but he would comment on Intervenors' appearances or anatomy. Defendant Peterson commented to Pierce that her "butt looked nice" during one or more telephone calls. Defendant Peterson commented on Munson's appearance or clothing during one or more telephone calls and in person.
2.13 On occasion Defendant Peterson hugged Pierce though this display was unwanted by her and she notified him of her disapproval.
2.14 On one occasion Defendant Peterson commented to Pierce that he had been checking her out for years.
2.15 On one or more occasion Defendant Peterson blocked Pierce in the cooler and commented on how cold the temperature was while staring at her breasts.
2.16 On one or more occasion Defendant Peterson blocked Munson in the cooler and commented on how cold the temperature was while staring at her breasts.
2.17 On at least one occasion, Defendant Peterson notified Munson that he had dreamed of her and that it gave him an erection.
2.18 On at least one occasion after opening the store, Defendant Peterson advised Munson that they would be alone for some time, then asked her to have sex with him on a large bakery table.
2.19 Due to his behavior and comments, Pierce and Munson feared being alone with Defendant Peterson.
2.20 On at least one occasion Defendant Peterson announced he was renting a room at Bennett Bay Inn and asked Munson to accompany him.
INTERVENORS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 4

• •
2.21 On at least one occasion Defendant Peterson was holding two melons and he announced he would like "to play with Rhonda's melons" referring to the produce manager.
2.22 On at least one occasion Defendant Peterson pulled Munson's shirt down below her shoulder.
2.23 On at least one occasion Defendant Peterson commented that he liked to watch Munson eat bananas.
2.24 Prior to Munson filing with the Idaho Human Rights Commission, Pierce had filed with the Idaho Human Rights Commission. Defendant Peterson approached Munson and requested she support his statements. He advised her that if she did not support him, he would be required to close the store and all employees would lose their jobs.
2.25 Pierce and Munson have filed claims with the Idaho Human Rights Commission as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
2.26 The Idaho Human Rights Commission has investigated the matter and has issued a determination of probable cause that Defendants have violated the law.
2.27 Pierce and Munson eventually resigned their positions with Defendant due to the hostile work environment created by Defendant Peterson.
2.28 Pierce and Munson and other women were paid lower wages than men who were hired by and worked for Defendants.
2.29 Munson developed renal failure and requested accommodation for this medical condition.
INTERVENORS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 5

2.30 Munson was originally denied this acconunodation and she was required to request acconunodation in writing.
2.31 Other employees were not required to formally request accommodation in writing. III. CAUSES OF ACTION
A. Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment 3.1 Defendants Sherman IGA and Peterson violated Idaho and federal law by placing
Plaintiffs in a work situation where they were subjected to continual sexual harassment and a hostile work environment.
3.2 Defendants Sherman IGA and Peterson discriminated against Intervenors by refusing to address the complaints made by them regarding the sexual harassment and inappropriate treatment they received.
3.3 Defendants Sherman IGA and Peterson discriminated against Intervenors by not remedying the hostile work environment and forcing them to resign from their positions.
3.4 Defendants Sherman, IGA, IGA, Inc., and Peterson are responsible for the actions, inactions, omissions, and illegal conduct oftheir supervisors, agents, employees, and representatives.
3.5 Defendant Peterson was an inunediate or successively higher supervisor to Pierce and Munson. Defendants Sherman IGA and IGA, Inc. are strictly liable for the sexual harassment imposed on Pierce and Munson by Defendant Peterson. B. Constructive Discharge
3.6 Intervenors have the right as employees not to be constructively discharged for reasons that violate clear public policy.
INTERVENORS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 6

• •

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April ~ 2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

placed in an envelope, sealed and deposited into the United States Mail at Spokane, Washington,

with first class postage fully prepaid thereon, addressed to the following:

A. Luis Lucero, Jr., Regional Attorney Barbara J. Standal, Supervisory Trial Attorney Zulema Hinojos-Fall, Senior Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

Ralph's Inc., d/b/a Sherman IGA and IGA, Inc. 1211 Sherman Ave. Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814-4309

William Peterson

Ralph's Inc., d/b/a Sherman IGA and IGA, Inc

1211 Sherman Ave. Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814-4309

~ TINE M. WEAVER

LAF!X:\48092001.011\PLDG\INTERVENE·COM.FRM

INTERVENORS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 10

 
 • • INITEO :0 IAH:G, CC0HW DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JU L :~ 2 IOU?
."_. M.REC·D___.
WDGED.,,_ -_FIi_ED .__..__ _ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

KIMBERLY PIERCE and BARBARA )

MUNSON,

)

)
Plaintifl~Interveners, )

)

v.

)

)

RALPH'S INC., an Idaho corporation d/bla )

SHERMAN lGA, WILLIAM PETERSON )

and JANE DOE PETERSON, individuaJly )

and as a marital community, and IGA,

)

INC., a toreign corporatiOn,

)

)

Defendants.

)

...... _-- )

CASE NO. CV OI-OIS7-N-EJL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Currently pending before the Court for its consideration is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Damage Claims (docket # 21). Having reviewed aJI briefing submitted, as well as other peltinent
documents in the Court's file, and having heard oraJ arguments, the Court makes its Report and Recommendation as tollows. II
Rc,'ort and Recommend,ltion - Page 1

• •
REPORT i.
Background. Plaintiff-Intervener Kimberly Pierce ("Pierce") and Plaintitl:lntervener Barbara Munson ("Munson") were employed by Ralph's grocery store, owned by Defendant William Peterson ("Peterson"). Interwners' Complaintfor Damages, 2-3 (docket # 17). Pierce worked for Ralph's as the Deli Manager from the spring of 1995 until she resigned in late Slimmer, 1999. !d at 2. Munson was hired by Ralph's as a checker in the slimmer of 1991, was promoted as a Deli manager in the fall of 1994, and resigned in 2000. Id. at 3. Peterson was the Plaintiffs' inlllediate supervisor at all times. Id. Plaintiffs allege Peterson made sexual comments regarding themselves and other females in the store despite their objections that such comments were inappropriate. ld. They further allege Peterson subjected them to unwanted physical contact, had once blocked each Plaintiffs' exit from the cooler at the store, and at one point pulled Munson's shirt down below her shoulder. !d at 4, 5. Upon Pierce's resignation, she f1led a complaint with the IdallO Human Rights Commission. Munson alleges Peterson approached her at that time, asking her to support his version of the events or else the store would have to be closed and all employees would lose their jobs. Id. at 5. Munson soon after filed her own complaint with the idaho Human Rights Commission and both women, as well as a month-long employee in 1999 named Jo Munson, filed claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. {d.; Complaint and Jury Trial Demand, (docket #1).
Report and Recommendation - Pa!,:" 2

• •
(Jf\
1\ April II, 2001 the EEOC t1Ied a claim against Ralph's and IGA, Inc, (docket # I) to correct the "unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, [for1constructive discharge and
retaliation and to provide appropriate relief' to Pierce, Munson, and J0 Munson, Complaint and Jury irial /Jemand, 1, Jo Munson did not pursue civil action individually, but on April 26, 2001 Pierce and Barbara Munson filed a joint motion to intervene (docket #3) that was granted July 13,
200 I (docket # 16), Pierce and Munson then filed their own complaint (docket # 17) against
Ralph's, Peterson, Peterson's spouse, and IGA, Inc, Plaintiff-Interveners' amended complaint contains the following causes of action: 1) sexual harassment and hostile work environment; 2) constructive discharge; 3) negligent investigation; 4) sex discrimination; 5) disability discrimination; 6) tort of assault; and 7) false imprisonment, Amended ComplaintfiJr Dama,ws and Demandfor Jury Trial, 6-8.
October 3, 200 I, all parties met for a mediation session with retired Judge Harold Clarke, AfJidavit (!I'Jeffrey A. Child, 2 (docket # 22). As a result orthat meeting Defendant Peterson, his attorney Jeffrey Child and Judge Clarke signed an "agreement for settlement" which is attached to the atlidavit ofMr, Child (docket # 22) as well as the affidavit of Plaintiff-Interveners' attorney, Christine Weaver (docket # 26). The agreement stated that Peterson would present a check ttlr $17,500 payable to Plaintiff's' attorney's trust account and, by December 8, 200 I, would deliver financial records to Plaintifl's' counsel. Affidavit ojChrisiine M Weaver (docket # 26), Exhibit E, The agreement went Oil to state that if those records contlrmed what Peterson represented at the mediation concerning his financial status, then th~ case would "be fully and finally settled for the $17,500 and execution of the Consent Decree [would] be filed with the court" 1d. However, ifthe records revealed that the financial inttlrmation was not accurately represented and Judge
Re,Jort and Recommendation - Page 3

• •

Clarke confirms such, then "negotiation and litigation will reopen [and] [tJhe $17,500 shall be

applied toward any new negotiated settlement or u1timat~ verdict." ld.

Soon aller the October mediation, Ms, W~aver contacted Mr. Child about acquiring

Peterson's financial records referred to in the mediation agreement. Affidavit of Christina M

Weaver (docket # 26), The following month, Ms. Weaver received only one response from the

twenty-seven institutions Mr. Child allegedly requested information from, Plaintiffv' Joint

Response to the Motion to j)ismis.\' j)amage Claims, 4-5 (docket # 25), December 5,2001, Ms,

W~aver sent a letter to Mr. Child that referred to some of Peterson's tax returns lhat had been

discovered, stating that "[wJith this information, it is apparent that your client's prior offer of

$17,500, , ,is inadequate, , " Perhaps with this information, you could go back to Mr. Peterson

and discuss tius matter with him." Affidavit of Christina M. Weaver (docket # 26), Exhibit 1.

Five days later, Ms, Weaver sent Mr. Child a lctter informing him that she disbursed the $17,500

to her clients that was "in essence a down payment on any settlement." Affidavit of Christina M

Weaver (docket # 26), F.xhibit K.

All parties met again, on March 7, 2002, with Judge Clarke for another mediation session

to, as Judge Clarke described, "see if there was any potential for a change in position ofthe

defendants regarding the monies that were appropriate for settlement of the case"

Af "

fi

dav

it

o. f

Christina M. Weaver (docket # 26), Exhibit P. The letter added that "it appeared thalthere was

some improvement in the revennes from the store" but that "it appears that the chances for

seltling the case without the necessity of trial arc slender if at all" Jd

April J, 2002, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss damage claims (docket # 21) claiming

that they were fully settled and compromised. PlaintifFs tiled a response to Defendants' motion to

ReJlort lind Recommendation - Page 4

• •
dismiss (docket # 25) on April 24, 2002, claiming that the case is still open and has not been settled. Plaintiffs' request for a settlement conference (docket # 24) was granted on May 7, 2002 (docket # 28), despite the pending motion to dismiss, and is scheduled for August 29, 2002 (docket # 32),
II.
Standard or review.
A motion to dismiss should not be granted "unless it appears beyond doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set offacts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief" Clegg v, Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752,754 (9th CiL 1994), When a complaint or portion thereof is tested as to the legal sufliciency of the claims for relief, all allegations of material fact in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the moving party, Buckey v. County of/,os Angeles, 968 F.2d 791,794 (9th Cic. 1991), cert, denied, 506 U.S 909 (1992).
Generally, the Court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. p, 12(b)(6), Branch v. Tunnel, 14 FJd 449, 453 (9th Cir, 1993), cert, denied, 114 S,Ct. 2704 (1994), Furthermore, if a Rule 12(b)(6) motion raises "matters outside the pleading" and these matters are "presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as providcd in Rule 56" When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the proper inquiry is whether "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is cntitled to a judgment as a matter oflaw," Fed, R, Civ, p, 56(c) (1993). Amoving party who docs not bear
Rellort and Recommendation - Page 5

• •
the burden of proof at trial may show that no genuine issue of material fact remains by demonstrating that "there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving palty's case." Celotex Corp v. Calrel/, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party meets the requirement of Rule 56 by either showing that no genuine issue of
material fact remains or that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's
case, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion who "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue tor trial." Anderson v. Uherty [,oMy, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.C!. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). It is not enough for the [non-moving] party to "rest on mere allegations of denials of his pleadings" [d. Genuine factual issues must exist that "can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Id., at 250.
"When determining if a genuine tactual issue ... exists, ... a trial judge must bear in mind the actual quantum and quality of proof necessary to support liability." Id., at 249-250. "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [defendant's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably Hnd for the [defendants]." [d.
The Ninth Circuit has consistently applied the standard for granting summary judgment. Musickv. Burke, 913 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir.1990); Pelletier v. Federal Hom!! Loan Bank, 968 F.2d 865 (9th Cir. 1992); Bi!![?hler v. Kleppe, 633 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1980).
In determining whether a material fact exists, tacts and inferences must be viewed most favorably to the non-moving party. To deny the motion, the Court need only conclude that a
RCllOrt and Recommendation - Puge 6

• •
result other than that proposed by the moving party is possible under the facts and applicable law, Aron.l'en v. Crown Zellerbach, 662 F.2d 584,591 (9th. Cir. 1981),
The Ninth Circuit has emphasized (hat summary judgment may not be avoided merely because there is some purported factual dispute, but only when there is a "genuine issue of material fact" Hanon v, Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992).
Tn order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party: (1) must make a showing sufficient to establish a genuine issue of fact with respect to any clement for which it bears the burden of proof; (2) must show that there is an issue that may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party; and (3) must come tllrward with more persuasive evidence than would otherwise be necessary when the tactual context makes the non-moving party's claim implausible. Hriti.l'h M%r Car Dis/rib. Ltd v. :,un Francisco Automotive Indus. Welfare Fund, 882 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1989)
III.
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Damage Claims. Defendants' agree that the $17,500 offered at the October 3, 200 I mediation was "conditionally accepted" pending further discovery of Peterson's financial records. Defendants' Memorandum in Support ofMo/io/l/o Dismiss l'laintift~' Damage Claims, (docket # 23), 3-4. However, Defendants contend that when Ms. Weaver distributed the $17,500 to her clients on December 10, 2001, that the Plaintiffs "dearly elected not to reopen settlement negotiations when they accepted the settlement money, .. " Id at 4. Plaintiffs maintain no settlement was reached because I) Plaintiffs only accepted Defendants' $17,500 offer contingent to further discovery oftinancial records; 2) Defendants failed to produce the majority ofthose records; 3) Plaintitfhelieves, based upon what records
Report and Recommendation - Page 7

• •
were made available, that Defendant misrepresented his financial status at the October mediation; 4) Plaintiffs told Defendants that the $17,500 offer was unacceptable; 5) Defendants represented to the court in December that negotiations were ongoing; 6) Defendants attended a second mediation session in March of2002; 7) the mediator represented that he believed that the Defendants' financial status had improved; 8) none of the Plaintiffs executed releases of any claims. Plaintil/EEOC and Plaintift-Interveners' Joint Response to the Motion to Dismiss f)amage Claims (docket # 25), 8-9.
The court may only enforce complete settlement agreements. Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987). Where material facts are in dispute, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing before it can enforce a settlement. In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd. v. Lincoln Plaza Development Co., 22 F.3d 954,958 (9"' Cir. 1994).
The PlaintitTs did not intend to be bound to the Octobcr mediation agreement. The agreement indicates that they only intended to be bound by a final settlement agreement filed with the court. Affidavit ofChristine M. Weaver (docket # 26), Exhibit B Fmthermore, Plaintiffs did not even sign the October agreement, nor did tlley sign a release of claims. Therefore, the agreement can hardly be considered "Hna!."
However, Defendants seek to "tlnalize" the settlement agreement by alleging that the PlaintitTs were not interested in furthering negotiations as evidenced by their acceptance of the $17,500 PlaintifTs deny that acceptance ofilie $17,500 was a ratiHcation of the agreement, and point out that ratiHcation is a question offact that the Defendants bcar the burden of proving. See Mal/of & Pearson v. Office of Workers Compensation, 98 F.3d 1170 (9"' Cir. 1996). The only piece of evidence the Defendants' offer to support ratiHcation is the Plaintiffs' acceptance of the
Report and Recommendation - Page 8

• •
money. However, (he language in the agreement itself and the letter Ms. Weaver sent notifying Mr. Child ofthe distribution of the $17,500 show that the parties had no intention of accepting the offer in full satisfaction of their claims and still considered the matter unsettled. See Affidavit ufChristina M Weaver (docket # 26), Exhibit B; ld., Exhibit K. In tact, the Defendants may also have considered the case unsettled as evidenced by their attendance at the second mediation session in March of2002.
Summarily, the Defendants have failed to provide the court with any evidencc that the October agreement represents the Hnal wishes of all the parties or that the acceptance of the $17,500 was ratification of the agreement. Defendants have no legal argumcnt nor any facts to support their position that the monetary claims against them be dismissed, therefore this motion must fail. II II II II II II II II II II II
Report and Recommendation - Page 9

• •
RECOMMENDATION Based upon the foregoing, the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that: I) Defendants' motio~ to dismiss be DENIED. Written obj ections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within ten (10) days pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.1(b), or as a result offailing to do so, that party may waive the right to raise factual and/or legal objections to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. DATED: JulyB-,2002.
MIKEL 1-1 WILLIAMS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Report and Recommendation - Page 10

• • United States District Court

ja

for the

District of Idaho

July 23, 2002

* * CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING * *

Re: 2:01-cv-00157

I certify that a copy of the attached document was mailed or faxed to the following named persons:
A Luis Lucero Jr, Esq. US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
John F Stanley, Esq. us EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Jeffrey A Child, Esq. 212 S Eleventh St #1 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
Christine M Weaver, Esq. MILLER DEVLIN MCLEAN & WEAVER 201 W North River Dr #500 Spokane, WA 99201-2266

_____Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill

--~~-CJhuidegfe

Edward J. Lodge Magistrate Judge

Larry M.

Boyle

__--=-~_agj,strate Judge Mikel H. Williams

Date:

7- J}·-O b

Cameron S. Burke, Clerk
BY: ~()~ (DepuYClj?rk) " V'

 
 • • U.S. COURTS
11IBIllUG 22 A g. OS
REeD >_ F\,ID.,--CAMERON S r;URKE.
CI.J:.!T< CAI'()
TN THE UNITED STATES DTSTRICT COLlIn
FOR THE DlSTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPT .OYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Phlintiff,

)

)

KIMBERLY PIEkCE and BARBARA )

MUNSON,

)

)

Plaintiff-Interveners, )

)

v.

)

,Il RALPH'S INC., Idaho Corporation

)
)

d/b!il SHERMAN lCiA, WTLLlAM

)

PETERSON ,md JANE DOE PETERSON, )

individually and as a marital community )

,md TGA, INC., a foreign corporation,

)

)

D<:l[cndants.

)

_ _ . __ l

CASE NO. CV 01-IS7-N-EJL
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT and RECOMMENDATION

,I On July 22, 2002, United SUites Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williall1s issued Report and

Reeomll1endation (Docket No. 35).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(I), the parties had ten (10) days in which \0 file written

objections to the RepOlt and Recommendation, however neither party has ohjected to the

recommendation. EX<:lrcising de IJovO review 0 rthe malkr, this Court may accept, reject or modi fy,

in whole or in palt, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge. l.Q,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMl\mNDATlON - Page J
O?ORI)hKS\R<:llphs .RNI{

• •
Ilecause thi s Court 11mb the Report and Recommendation to be well founded in law and suppOited by the record, the Court hereby accepts in their entirety, and adopts as its own, the lindings made by Judge Williams. Acting on the recOlnmcndation ofJudge Williams and this Court being fully advised in the premises,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on July 22, 2002, (Docket No.35) is hereby, INCORPORATED by reierence and ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion (0 Dismiss (Docket No. 21) shall be DENIED.
tI.
Dated this .2,r-- day of August, 2002.
"-------~-.... ,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMRNDATION - Page 2
{)2()RIH-'.RS\l{alphs .RNR

• • United States District Court

ja

for the

District of Idaho

August 22, 2002

* * CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING * *

Re: 2:01-cv-00157

I certify that a copy of the attached document was mailed or faxed to the following named persons:

A Luis Lucero Jr, Esq. US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061

John F Stanley, Esq. US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061

Jeffrey A Child, Esq. 212 S Eleventh St #1 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814

Christine M Weaver, Esq. MILLER DEVLIN MCLEAN & WEAVER 201 W North River Dr #500 Spokane, WA 99201-2266

1-509-328-6436

~~_Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill
...·---Judge Edward J. Lodge
____=~hief Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle ~agistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams

Date:

Cameron S. Burke, Clerk BY:

 
 • •

A LUIS LUCERO, JR., REGIONAL ATTORNEY
J JOHN F. STANLEY, ACTING SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEii"? i~-;- I

v ' , ,. ....-,____ EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

.

Ptl 3: 57

909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104

. '. ·.·.· .... n..,·.·R,'; .

'A'

'..'\1 ,_ ... :, 1'\

TEL: (206) 220-6896

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO

0(: f ) B 2002

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
RALPH'S, INC. d/b/a SHERMAN IGA AND IGA, INC.

) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. CIV 01-0157-N-EJL ) ) CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER ) DISMISSING ACTION )

Defendants.

)

-------------------------)

I. INTRODUCTION 1. This action originated with charges of discrimination filed with the plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission"), on December 1, 1999, by Kimberly Pierce; December 9, 1999, by Jo Munson; and April 6, 2000 by Barbara Munson. The charges alleged sexual harassment, sex discrimination and constructive discharge against defendant, Ralph's, Inc, d/b/a/ Sherman IGA and IGA, Inc. ("defendants"), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights, 42 USC §2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). A copy of the charges is attached to this consent decree as Exhibit 1, 2. The EEOC sent defendant Letters of Determination on March 14,2001,

Consent Decree - Page 1

u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
51!.attlIB Oi!ltriet OffiCII! 909 fir~t A~hur:, Suite. 400 Sedttl!!, Wdshlngtol\ 98104-1061 Tl!lephone: (206) 2:20-6883
Fllcsimile: (206) 220-6911 TOO. (~06) 2110-6882

'1\

• •
for Kimberly Pierce and Jo Munson, and on March 23, 2001, for Barbara Munson finding there was reasonable cause to believe that the allegations of each of them were true and that defendant had sexually harassed Kimberly Pierce, Jo Munson and Barbara Munson ("charging parties") in violation of Title VII. A copy of the Letters of Determination is attached as Exhibit 2.
3. The Commission filed this lawsuit on April 11, 2001, in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho against Ralph's, Inc. d/b/a Sherman IGA and IGA, Inc.
4. The plaintiff, plaintiff-intervenor and defendant want to conclude the claims arising out of the charges, the EEOC's determination, and this action without expending further resources in contested litigation.
II. NON·ADMISSION OF LIABILITY AND NON-DETERMINATION BY THE COURT
5. This consent decree is not an adjudication or finding on the merits of this case and shall not be construed as an admission by defendant of a violation of Title VII.
III. SETTLEMENT SCOPE 6. This consent decree is the final and complete resolution of all allegations of unlawful employment practices contained in Kimberly Pierce's, Jo Munson's and Barbara Munson's discrimination charges, in the EEOC's Letters of Determination, and in the complaint filed in this action. The injunctive relief provisions of this consent decree apply to all Ralph's, Inc. d/b/a Sherman IGA facilities, employees and managers.

Consent Decree - Page 2

u.s. EqUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISsJ:ON
5ir;llttls Oist1"'lc:t OfficE
909 f"lrst Aw.nue, SuiTe 400
Sl!;.dttlli. Wcshlll9t"tI 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile. (206) 220-6911 TOI;;t. (206) 220-6862

• •
IV. MONETARY RELIEF 7. In settlement of this suit, defendant agrees to pay $96,500 to Kimberly Pierce, Jo Munson and Barbara Munson, in the following amounts, in satisfaction of all claims for monetary relief in this action. The amounts will be allocated as follows: (1) Barbara Munson: $9,000 paid previously; $4,000 to be paid not later than October 12, 2002; $4,000 to be paid not later than September 1,2003; $4,000 to be paid not later than September 1,2004; and $25,000 to be paid not later than September 1, 2005; (2) Kimberly Pierce Brandal: $5,000 paid previously; $4,000 to be paid not later than October 12, 2002; $4,000 to be paid not later than September 1,2003; $4,000 to be paid not later than September 1, 2004; and $23,000 to be paid not later than September 1, 2005; (3) Jo Munson: $3,500 paid previously; $4,000 to be paid not later than October 12, 2002; and $3,000 to be paid not later than September 1, 2003. Defendant shall pay interest at a rate of 7% annually on all principal amounts, except for payments made on or before October 12, 2002. The schedule of payments, reflecting principal and interest amounts, is attached as Exhibit 3. A copy of all checks will be mailed to the Commission at the time of payment. In return, KimberlyPierce,Jo Munson and Barbara Munson have negotiated and will execute release agreements with defendant, to which the EEOC is not a party, in full satisfaction of all claims related to or arising out of their employment. /I

Consent Decree - Page 3

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNll'I COMMIS5J:ON Scdttl. I)istri(:t Off~1!
909 ril'"st AYl!;I'IlJe.. 5uit~ 400
58(]ttr~. WO:!lhlngton 9a104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
F(lI;$"ill1ile.; (206) ~j!O-69t1
TOD: (206) 220-6682

• •
V. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF A. General Provisions 8. Defendant agrees to comply with the provisions of Title VII in its employment decisions. To further this commitment, defendant will monitor the affirmative obligations of this consent decree. 9. Defendant will not retaliate against any current or former employee for opposing any practice made unlawful by Title VII or for participating in any activity protected by Title VII. 10. Defendant will expunge from the charging parties' records all references to their charges of discrimination. Defendant will provide each with a good job reference if requested by a potential employer and will not refer to her charge of discrimination or the outcome of this litigation. 11. In recognition of its obligations under Title VII, defendant will institute the policies and practices set forth below. B. Establishment of Policy and Procedures to Prevent Discrimination 12. Defendant agrees to hire a professional consultant with expertise in developing practices and procedures to prevent and correct sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace. The expert will advise the company on developing written policies and procedures to prevent and correct sexual harassment and retaliation in facilities owned and operated by defendant. 13. The written policy will include a statement from William Joe Peterson that he, as owner of the company, is committed to ensuring that the practices and the

Consent Decree - Page 4

U,So EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SeG'I'tl" Dls'l'ric.'I' Offlel!
909 First Avenv~, :Suit!!: 400 Sentfle.. WQ~hingtDh 98104-1061
TI!Ii!phone: (206) 2'20-6883 Facsimile; (:?06) 220-69U TOO: (206) 220_68B2

• •

conduct of the owner, manager and employees will comply with the requirements of

Title VII prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion or national

origin in the workplace. The policy will also include provisions specifying that those who

violate the policy will be subject to appropriate discipline, up to and including

termination.

14. The written policy will also include an internal complaint procedure for

employees to report incidents of discrimination with several avenues to make

complaints so that defendant's owner and managers are made immediately aware of

such complaints, can investigate and take appropriate action.

15. The internal complaint procedure will include the following provisions:

a.

A list of the appropriate persons to whom an individual should

report allegations of discrimination and sexual harassment;

b.

An explanation of how to make a complaint and the steps

involved in investigating an allegation of harassment or

discrimination, including informing the affected individuals of the

outcome of the investigation;

c.

A designated phone number where complaints of sexual

harassment can be made and with assurance the complaints

will also be immediately responded to.

16 . Defendant will submit a copy of its revised written policy for the EEOC's

review and approval not later than September 1, 2003. Within thirty (30) days of the

date of approval by the EEOC, defendants will distribute the policy to all present and

Consent Decree - Page 5

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPO~TUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle bis:tric:t Office 909 First Iwenul!;, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 T~lepl1one; (206) 2110-6883
Fac~ilflil~: (206)220.6911 TDD~ (206) 220-68B2

• •
future employees, both management and non-management. 17. Defendant also agrees that if any changes or modifications are made to
the written policy during the duration of the consent decree, the defendant will seek prior approval from EEOC.
C. Posting Notice 18. Defendant will post the notice attached as Exhibit 4 to this consent decree. The notice shall be posted on a centrally located bulletin board at Ralph's/Sherman IGA where notices to employees are normally posted or where employees will see the notice for the duration of the consent decree. Defendant will also post in the same location a copy of the EEO policy referenced in paragraphs 11 through 14, above. E. Training 19. During the term of this consent decree, defendant will provide at least six hours of employment discrimination and sexual harassment training annually for its owner, managers and employees conducted by a qualified professional with expertise in the field of discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. The training agenda shall include instruction on employment issues, including but not limited to, the following topics: a definition of sexual harassment; how to recognize sexual harassment; how managers and supervisors should respond to sexual harassment complaints; how managers and supervisors should conduct sexual harassment investigations; the effects of sexual harassment on employees in the workplace; the appropriate steps the managers and supervisors at each location should take to

Consent Decree - Page 6

U.S. EQUAL EMPWYMENT OPPO'TUNlTY COMMISSION
Scattl. bi.triGt OfficI!. 909 First Avenul!, suitt!; 400 SeattlE:. W(lshington 98104-1061 Te.lephone. (~06) 220-6883
FQ,I;$"i",ile' (206) :F:20-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6aa2

• •

prevent sexual harassment from occurring; appropriate discipline if sexual harassment

occurs; the legal obligations of owners, supervisors and managers to prevent and

correct sexual harassment. In addition, such training must also include defendant's

written equal employment opportunity policy and its internal complaint procedures

established pursuant to paragraphs 11-15, above.

20. The first training will take place not later than September 1, 2003. The

second training will take place not later than September 1, 2004, and the third training

will take place not later than September 1, 2005. The form, content, and number of the

training events will be subject to prior review by the EEOC, and the cost of training shall

be borne by defendant.

21. Defendant will provide to the EEOC a list of attendees of the training,

and an evaluation form filled out by each attendee with the option to sign their names or

remain anonymous, and a copy of the training materials and handouts with the reports

required in paragraph 23.

F. Reporting

22. Six months after implementation of the policy referenced above in

paragraphs 11-14, and every six months thereafter for the term of the decree,

defendant will provide a report to the Commission with the following information:

a.

a summary of the complaints of employment discrimination, if

any, filed pursuant to the provisions of its written and disseminated policy as set forth in

paragraphs 11-14 during the preceding six-month period. The report will describe the

resolution of each complaint.

Consent Decree - Page 7

U.S. EQUAl EMPlOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Sli:llttlll. Oistriet Offiell. 909 t=il'!tt Avr:nue:, Suite: 400 Seattle. WlI!lhlngton 98104-1061 Te.lephol'\e: (206) 220-6883
f(ll;;irnile. {206} ~20-6911 TOD: (206) 220-eSSZ

• •

b.

copies of the attendee lists, evaluations, and materials of the

training required by paragraphs 19-21.

c.

a statement listing the other provisions of this decree that

defendant is required to perform during the preceding period and certifying that it has

complied with the terms of the decree. If defendants have not complied with any term

of the decree, the statement will specify the areas of noncompliance, the reason for the

noncompliance, and the steps taken to bring defendants into compliance.

VI. ENFORCEMENT

23. The United States District Court for the District of Idaho shall retain

jurisdiction over this matter for the duration of the decree. If the EEOC concludes that

defendant has breached any of the above provisions, it may bring an action to enforce

this consent decree no sooner than fourteen (14) days after providing defendants

written notification of the alleged breach. The period following the written notice will be

used by the parties for good faith efforts to reach agreement on how to bring

defendants into compliance with the decree.

VII. TERMINATION OF DECREE

25. This decree shall be in effect for three years commencing with the date

the decree is entered by the court. If the EEOC petitions the court and the court finds

defendants to have violated the terms of this consent decree, it may extend the period

/I

/I

/I

Consent Decree - Page 8

u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORwNnY cOMMISSION 58(1ttl. Oi$tr~t Offlc.1!.
909 Fir~t Avel'lu~. Suit~ 400
SUlttll!, W4:!!Ihlngtol\ 9al04-I061 Telephone: (206) 220-6B83 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 T{>{>: (~06) 22'0-6882

• •
of this consent decree and award the Commission its costs in bringing an enforcement
action.

DATED this _I,-,I_~__ day of __o_...--'~~--,_~--=_ . _, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. Regional Attorney

NICHOLAS M. INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel

JOHN F. STANLEY Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney
BY4~

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

COMMISSION

Seattle District Office

Office of the General Counsel

909 1st Avenue, Suite 400

1801 "L" Street, NW.

5'Y' Seattle, Washington 98104
Telephone (206) 220-6896

Washington, D.C. 20507 fm PIa;"';ff

BY:
Jeffrey A. Child CHILD & FISHER 212 S. Eleventh Street, Suite 1 Coeur D'Alene, 1083814
Attorneys for Defendant
/I
/I
/I
/I

Consent Decree - Page 9

U.S. EQVA~ EMPLOYMENT Ql'PORTVNITY COMMISSION SeO-ttlt: bls1'r'tt Offi« 909 First Avenue, Suite 400
Seo.ttl~, W(lshin9tan 91:1104-1061 Te:k.phohl!: (206) 220-6883 Fdcslmlll!;: (206) 220-69U TOO: (2'06) 220-6882

• •
ORDER The Court, having considered the foregoing stipulated agreement of the parties, HEREBY ORDERS THAT the foregoing consent decree be, and the same hereby is, approved as the final decree of this Court in full settlement of this action. This lawsuit is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to any party. The Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for purposes of enforcing the consent decree approved herein.
7i. &I.-L-
DATED this 17 day of __________, 2002.
UNITED STAT UL---

Consent Decree - Page 10

U,S, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT O/'PORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Offl«
909 Fif',:It Avenue., 51,1iH 400 S~ttlr:, WII!fhillgtoh ~Bl04-1061
T~I~pkoMi!: (206) ~20-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

__ ..... "' _ _ _ •

for. is ~11~ct.d by the Pr1v

,

_ • ...,."",111 ••••, •• l1li'" •• V ••
'074; See pr1yacy Act Stat •••nt

Idaho Human Rights Commission Stole or localAgeli<)'. ifany
NAMe (Illdiaate Hr•• M& •• Nra.)

CITY I

and EEOC

NAME

0 0 DRACE

0 COLOR

o 0 o RETALIATION

!Xl SEX

RELIGION

NATIONAL ORIGIN

AGE

DISABILITY OOTHERrS_Uy)

THE PARTICULARS ARE (Ir 8.tlI.11t.1MIJ1 SPIl(J6 16 Jt~~d(fd, llttlJch eztra sh~t(S))1
***5ee Attached***

Inalud~ A~4
10/28/199

\DAi.,O HUMAN RiGi-;; COivEvlISS10 i\l

want this charge filed with both tne EEOC ano th~ State or

" (wn,n necessary for State and Local

lOcal Agency I i f any. l wlll ,advha the agenc!es .t.f I ChangEI' my I-:---.....:~s:::::-::=-;--=-~~::::-:~:-:::::-:=:::;,...~=::---j

adClialiti or U18pnone number and cooperate rUlly with tMm in the

anU tt"lat

01

w1tn

In:1:oriiit:lon and ndie1.

1 Cleclare unQer penalty or per]ury that tl'l8 foregoing b true ana corraet.

SIGNATURE OF

TO BEFORE

S DATE

Jo Munson v. Shennan IGA

•

•

THE PARTICULARS ARE: I. Complainant's Statement of Harm:
I was sexually harassed by Respondent and forced to constructively discharge my employment. II. Respondent's Reason for Adverse Action:
Respondent gave no reason for the harassment. III. Complainant's Statement of Discrimination: I believe I have been discriminated against on the basis of my S"X, female. In support of this allegation, I offer the following particulars:

A. I worked in the deli at Respondent, a grocery store. I have worked there on and off since July 3, 1998. I quit my job once and then came back four months ago.
B. Respondent's owner, Bill Peterson, sexually harassed me and other women. He grabbed me, made rude sexual comments to me, and when I expressed my displeasure about him touching mc, he told me I "deserved it." Other women have also experienced similar types of harassment.
C. During October 1999, Mr. Peterson scheduled me to work ten days in a row. When I told him that because offamily obligations, 1 could not work 10 days in a row, he became abusive towards me, even calling me a "liar." This was the straw that broke the camel's back. All of the sexual harassment and abuse had accumulated to the point I knew I could not continue to work for this man, and so I quit my job.
D. Respondent employs over 15 employees.

I believe the practices of the above-named Respondent ill'C in violation of:
(X) Title 67, Chapter 59 ofthe Idaho Code ( , ) Title 44, Chapter 17 oftha Idaho Code (X) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( ) Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) ( )Americans with Disabilities Act

:.H~::~,,~'II~~~~~:~:~I~~ .CY This Tor. 1s affected by
C'.olllpUtlllg tnU form.

\ZI Statomont bet ..... e

EPA EEOC

/J- '/_ 4> _~HAR-I1E .N:JUM+StaERJ3' :;,
::.Jc ., ,_J-,'-j,ei I. ,-,._ ,C'-~ "·,). G" ' -~ , j .'

Igaho HUID!l.n 11lglJ,l;d, !:/QWw1!i!§lQn Slate or /ooal A8<'ncy, ifany

and EEOC

NAME (lndtcBto Hr., H~ •• Mrs.)

HOME TELEPHONE (Inalude Area (lode)

Ms. Barbara Munson
sTREET ADDRESS

CITY I STATE AND zlp CODE

(2081 66~-2292
DATE OF BIRTH

408 N. Pith St. Coeur D Alene ID 83814

o7/2 4/1.95'

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,

STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME tTl'MH°/!" thstl one It3t /;lelolf'.)

N:AUE

, HUM6EfI OF EMPLOYEES, Mi:MSERS ,TELEPHONE(InClUde Arclf (Jode)

Sherman IGA
STREET A.DDRESS

iCat A (15-100)
CITV, STATE AND ZIP COD~

(208) 664-9992-
COUNTY

1211 Sherman Ave. Coeur D Alene ID 8'1814
NAME

05')
TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area OQd~)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND zIP CODE

COUNlv

CAUSe. Or- OISCRunNATION BASED ON (Check sppropr1ate box(~s))

DRACE

o GOlOR

IX] SEX

o RELIGION

o NATIONAL ORIGIN

IXl RETALIATION

DAOE

o (KI DISABILITY

OTHER (SfMc1ry)

THE PAflrlCULARS ARE tIr ~d.;J1t,1(}nal lJPJ!1.~~ Is f)~~d~d, s:ttb.di) ~xtra sheet(:;))!
***See Attached***

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

F.~"r,!RS'l'

£ATE81'

06/01/1991 03/01/2000 IKl CONTINUING ACTION

----
~
.J --1j'~

--,

,--== ._' ..--'..

~.,

. --

,

- ,"

APR C6 2::J

._.. _.

-"

.......,\1

/

,I want this chal"'glEt HUd wltn both th~ EEOC: an~ the State or r~- (WI'Ien necessary 10r state Bnd Local RaqU1r~~~!.!>..).---"--

local Agency, 11 any. I w111 aav1'e tha agenCleij 11 I cnange my adQre~s or tel9pnona number and cooperata 1~lly with them 1n the

I swear Dr a~ that I have rea~ tn~ above ~ '9 ~ ana that

I processing 01 mv charge in aCC"Qroaoce wtth their procedures.

it l~ true to the

of ~y knowledg9,~nldfmatlon and pellef,

:t:{SI! -:/3/~l~£r~~i)h'l;i(f/; """"~ 1 declare under penalty 01 perjury that the foregoing is true
ana CQrrect_

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAJ~T ~

,

z,{LYJU
""to

JtMonth.~ y an~ y~ar)

~/

'

-

ceDC tUH" 0 (HOY. UI/""I

Barbara Munson v_ Sherman lOA

•

•

Pagelwo

THE PARTICULARS ARE:

I.

Complainant's Statement of Harm:

I have been subjected to sexual harassment and harassment about needing a kidney transplant by the owner of the store. I have also been subjected to retaliation for rejecting the sexual advances of the owner of the store. After former employees filed a Charge of Discrimination against Respondsn~ theowner retaliated against me. Finally, I had no choice but to take a constructive discharge.

II. Respondenfs Reason for Adverse Action:

William Peterson, owner, has suggested that I need to take time off work because of my disability. He also told me that I needed to make a decision as how I would testify regarding the other Charges filed against him and that my friends would lose their jobs if he lost the cases.

III. Complainant's Statement of Discrimination:

I believe that I was discriminated against on the basis of my sex, female, in that I was subjected to sexual haressment I believe that I was retaliated against for rejecting the sexual harassment. I also believe that I have been subjected to discrimination on the basis of my disability, renal failure, and that I was retaliated against for the perception that I support former co-workers who filed Charges of Discrimination. In support of this, I offer the following:

A. I began working for Respondent in June of 1991 as a checker. I was promoted to deli manager in September 1994. I was transferred to the bakery a few months later

B. From about the time that I began my employment, Mr. Peterson has made inappropriate and sexual comments to me despite my protests. He also asked me for sex The following are instances of sexual harassment to which I was subjected.

1. It is the responsibility of the deli/bakery employees to answer the telephone. Mr. Peterson would call on Wednesday, his day off work. When I answered, Mr. Peterson would say, ''Your hair looked really nice yesterday" or "I really liked what you were wearing."

2. Mr. Peterson often made comments about the way I looked. As a result, I began to wesr baggy and loose fitting clothes.

3. Sometime in 1995, Mr. Peterson said that he had a dream about me and that it gave him an erection. He said he wished that I had been there. Later that day, he gave me a sexually explicit magazine. I immediately gave it back to him and said I did not like those kinds of magazines.

4, On December 26, 1995, I opened the store with Mr. Peterson. He said, "We will be alone for at least an hour." He then suggested that we not let the large bakery table go to waste. It was clear that he was suggesting we have sex on that table. I said I would not do that and that I was a married woman. I made sure that I was never alone with him agsin.

5. Mr. Peterson could come into the freezer when I was there and comment about how cold it was. While staring at my chest, he would comment, "I have a hard-on."

Barbara Munson v. Sherman IGA Page Three

•

•

6. Mr. Peterson overheard a conversation I had with Kim Pierce, a co-worker, about a television program on mistresses. Later he said that he could not give me cash but that he could give me things like clothing and jewelry. He aSked if I had ever had a facial. When I said, "No," he offered to pay for me to have a facial.
7. One morning, Mr. Peterson took money out of the candy machines. He said it was his play money and that he said he was getting a room at Bennett Bay Inn, a hot-tub resort, and asked me whether I would like to join him. I replied, "No, I am a manied woman!"
8. He was holding a melon in each hand and said, "I would sure like to play with Rhonda's melons." It was clear that he was making a sexual reference to Rhonda, the produce manager.
9. He told me to hold still for a moment. When I did that, he pulled my sweater down and exposed my shoulder. He supposedly did this so that he could look at the tattoo that he heard was on my shoulder. I was so shocked that I could not say anything.
10. In November 1999, he offered me a banana. I said that I could not eat bananas anymore because I had renal failure. He said that was too bad because he liked to watch me eat bananas.
11. That same day, he commented that he liked my thighs. When I questioned what he was talking about, he pretended that he was commenting on the T-shirt I was wearing which has the picture of a chicken's head and the name of a brand of breading that is canied by the store.
C. After I rejected Mr. Peterson's requests for sex several times, it was clear to me that my lack of cooperation would lead to problems for me. The following are instances of the retaliation to which I was subjected.
1. In November of 1996, I had to have foot surgery. I was off for two weeks. On the first day back to work, my foot began to swell and I was in a lot of pain from standing. I asked to go home but Mr. Peterson would not allow me to leave.
2. In November of 1998, I had knee surgery and had to be off work for six weeks. During my medical leave, Ms. Pierce was asked to take over my job permanently by Mr. Peterson. When I returned to work, Mr. Peterson became very angry after I handed a note from my doctor to him. He then walked over to the deli and ripped the SChedule off the wall and walked away.
D. On August 28, 1999, I informed Mr. Peterson that I had renal failure and would need a kidney transplant within a year. I did not have any medical restrictions. Subsequently, Mr. Peterson harassed me about taking time off from work although I kept telling him that I did not need to take time off and was able to do my job. He repeatedly told me that I needed to rest and asked me whether I would like to take some time off work. He also asked Kim Pierce to take over my job permanently because he thought that I would no longer be able to perform my duties.
E. In September of 1999, Mr. Peterson asked me to take supervision of the bakery and the deli departments. Mr. Peterson said that I would only be doing the ordering and that his daughter, 8eth Nick, would get the bonus for the deli. He did not think that I should get a raise for doing both jobs in both departments. He claimed that I was the only person that knew how to do the ordering for the deli, so I had to do the ordering for both departments anyway.

Barbara Munson v. Sherman lGA

•

•

Page Four

F. Mr. Peterson knew that he was causing me a great deal of stress and that it was affecting my health, yet he continued to do things that he knew were stressful. For example, I wrote up an employee for habitually being late. Mr. Peterson simply ignored my write-up and refused to support me on the discipline of this employee.
G. On January 15, 2000, I requested an accommodation. I asked thaI my scheduled hours be reduced so that I did not work more than eight hours per day and four days per week for a total of 32 hours. This was a reduction from 40 and more hours per week.
H. On Sunday, February 27, 2000, I went into the store to purchase some items. Mr. Peterson said he wanted to talk to me. He said that he knew that I was a principal in the lawsuit filed with the Human Rights Commission by Kim Pierce and Jo Munson. He said I needed to make a decision on what I was going to do. He said I would be called to testify and what happened to him would affect the people that worked for him. He said that if this thing went one step further, his wife and daughter would be hurt by it. and he would have to file fef bankruptcy. If he had to file for bankruptcy, all my friends would lose their jobs. He said I could prevent all this by writing a letter to the Human Rights Commission saying I had no knowledge of anything in the lawsuit and had nothing to testify about. He suggested Ms. Pierce and I were planning to share any money that came from the lawsuit. He knows that my testimony will support any case against him. I told him that due to health, I could not handle the stress of the conversation and did not want to talk about it anymore. He said that someone needed to talk to him about it and get things settled. He asked my husband to talk to him, which he did.
F. I could no longer take the discriminatory and retaliatory treatment to which Mr. Peterson had subjected me to for so many years, and my health was suffering as a result. I knew that I had no recourse but to take a constructive discharge on March 1, 2000, as it was apparent that Mr. Peterson had no intention of ever putting a stop to the illegal treatment of me.
G. Respondent has more than 15 employees.

I believe the practices of the above-named Respondent are in violation of:
(Xl Title 67, Chapter 59 of the Idaho Code ( ) Title 44, Chapter 17 of the Idaho Code (X) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Xl Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEAl ( ) Americans with Disabilities Act ( ) Equal Pay Act

CHARGE
TI'Ii.s forln U. Ufected by tn. privacy,.

01 1914; Sea pr1vacy Act $tateMant befl

Idaho Human Rights Commi§siQn Stare ar localAgency, ifany
Hr.• N:t" Nrs.

o FEPA eeoc

CHAR.~ NUMBER
£-/2gQ-2oz

and EEOC

SIRE

!XI DRAce

0 COLOR

o o RETALIATION D..oe

SEX

0 RElIOION

0 NATIONAL ORIGIN

0 DISASIlITY

OTHER (_.try!

THE PARTICULARS AhE (rr IJdd1t1gnal 3/M¢t: j" munted. IIttatlh (lzth slJ~~t(s))r
***See Attached***

lOft,NO HUMAN RIGHTS
COM'V1!SSION

want this eharge flIed w1th Doth the EEOC and tne State or

- (When ~ecessary for state ana local

lOCal Agency. if tmy. I w111 tU;JV!SB tM agel'lc;:18S t1 I change Iny \ -_ _ _"""...,,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - : , _ " ' - - - - ,

.\{(h1reU or telepMnG nUliber ana cooperate tully with the'" l,n tM r SWear Or

ot

1t is true

and tMt lnl<>tii.tlon and bal1et.

I declare under penalty of perJury that tn. fore001ng 13 true and corract.

SIGNATURE OF

SWORN

DATE

• Kimberly Pierce v. Shennan IGA
Page: Two
THE PARTICULARS ARE:

•

I. Complainant's Statement ofBarm:
I have been subjected to sexual harassment by the owner of the store. Finally. I could no longer take the sexual harassment and was forced to take a constructive discharge.
II. Respondent's Reason for Adverse Action:
William Peterson, owner, has laughed when I have objected to his sexual harassment.
m. Complainant's Statement of Discrimination:
I believe that I was discriminated against on the basis of my sex, female, in that I was subjected to
sexual harassment. In support of this, r offer the following:
A. I began working for Respondent in April 1995, as the deli manager.
B. From the time that I began my employment, Mr. Peterson has made inappropriate and sexual comments to me despite my protests. The following are instances of sexual harassment to which I was subjected,
• Mr. Peterson would call me on the telephone while we were working and tell me that my butt looked very nice in my pants.
• Mr. Peterson would hug me. When 1 told him not to do that, he would respond in a mocking tone of voice saying, "I'm sorry I got in your space."
• On October 31,1998, Mr. Peterson said, "At the risk of sounding like a pervert, did you get that short outfit?" I told him that I did not.
• On December 8, 1998, I asked Mr. Peterson whether he wanted some bean dip. He said that would be like whipped cream' as it would have the same effect.
• On January 26, 1998, I told Mr. Peterson that his sexual comments were not appropriate. He laughed and said, "Whatever."
• On February 5, 1999, the deli case was broken and the drain was plugged. Mr. Peterson said, "I guess we'll need to douche it out once a month."
• On Februarys 23, 1999, Mr. Peterson said, "You know Barbara (Munson) is not going to do small sticky buns, only big ones. She has a problem with sticky buns." I told Mr. Peterson that he was disgusting.

• •
Kimberly Pierce v, Sherman IGA rage Three
• On August 6, 1999, I asked Mr. Peterson whether the repairpersons from Market Equipment had indicated when they would be at the store to do repairs. Mr. Peterson said, "Oh, they're coming or at least breathing hard."
• On August 7, 1999, I was buying groceries. I asked Mr. Peterson to check me out. He said, "I've been checking you out for years."
C. I could no longer take the sexual harassment from Mr. Peterson and I was forced to take'll constructive discharge effective August 27, 1999.
D. Respondent has more than 15 employees.
I believe the practices ofthe above-named Respondent are in violation of:
(X) Title 67, Chapter 59 of the Idaho Code ( ) Title 44, Chapter 17 of the Idaho Code (X) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( ) Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) ( ) Americans with Disabilities Act ( ) Equal Pay Act

EQ~)AL EMP~YMENT U.S.

OPPORTUNITY COMMISIN

Seattle District Ortiee

MAR 1 it 2001

Federal Oftice Huili.hll~
909 First Ave., Sld{c ·1(X) Seatll~, WA 981011-J061
pU: (20t;) nO-6883 TOn: (206) 220-6882FAX: (206) 2ZU-6~H I

Charge 38CA00075

Ms. Kimberly Pierce 1720 North 9" Street Coeur d'Alene. ID 83814

Charging Party

Sherman lGA 1212 Shennan Avenue Coeur D'Alene, ID 83814

Respondent

DETERMINATION

Under the authority vested in me hy the Commission's Procedural Regulations, I hereby issue on behalf of the Commission the following determination as to the merits of the subject charge.
Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended (Title Vll), and timeliness, deferral. and all other jurisdict.ional requirements have heeu mel. Substantial weight has been accorded the findings of t.he Idaho State HUlnan Rights Commission. A review of the record presented indicates that the state agency indicated above was unsnccessful in its allcmpt to settle this matter.
Having detennined that therc is reason to believe that a violation has occurred on the allegations of sexual harassmcnt and consu'uctive discharge, the COlllillission nOW invites the parties to join with it in collective efforts toward a jnst resolution of this matter. A representative of this office will he in cont.act with each party in the ncar fumre to begin the conciliation process.
When the Respondent declines to enter into settlement discussions. or when the Commission's
represeutative for any other reason. is nnahle to 'eeure a settlement acceptable to the office Director,
the Director shall so int(lrm the parties in writing and advise them of the court enforcement alternative availahle to the Charging Party, aggrieved persons, and the Commission.

On behalf of the Commission:
?~C;~f -~/l4-(f
-;-;JE""A. :-:N""I1"'d"""IE=' M. LEINO District Director
cc: Jeffrey A. Child, Attorney for Respondent

• • U.S. EQtJAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Uistrict Ol'lice MAR 1 4 2001

FL'dCnll Ofl'it.:\; BLlildillg: 909 Fim Ave., Suite 400
Sc:attlc. WA ~)I!I\04·IO()L PH: (206) l20-(,[!.H3
TDU; (06) 22()-6Si=:2 FAX; (206) 220-()I) 11

Charge 38CA00080

Ms. Jo Munson POBox 1153 Spirit Lake, ID 83869

Charging Party

Shennan IGA 1212 Shennan Avenue Coeur D'Alenc, ID 83814

Respondent

DETERMINATION

Under the authority vested in me by the Commission's Procedural Regulations, I herehy issue on hehalf of the Commission the following determination as to the merits of the subject charge.
Respondent is an employcr wifhin the mcaning of Title VII oIthe 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended (Title VII), and timeliness, deferral, and all other jurisdictional requirements have been met. Suhstantial weight has been accorded the findings of the Idaho State Iluman Rights Commission, A review of the record presented indicates that the state agency indicatcd above was unsuccessful in its attempt to settle this matter.
Having determined that tllere is reason to believe that a violation has occurred on the allegations of sexual harassmcnt and constructive discharge, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in collective eHorts toward a just resolution of Tllis matter. A representative of this oftjce will be in contact with each party in the near futurc to begin the conciliation process.
When the Respondent declines to enter into settlement discussions, or when tlle Commission's representativc for any other reason, is unahle to sccure a settlement acceptable to the officc Director, the Director shall so inform the parties in writing and advise them oIthe court enforcement alternativc available to the Charging Party, aggrieved persons, and the Commission.

On hehalf of the COl]lmission;
~~.~14(Y a[
JEANETTE M. LEINO District Director
cc: Jeffrey.A. Child, Attorney for Respondent

• • U.S. EQUAL Jl;MPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Seattle District Office
MAR 2 3 2001

IWI} l-"ir~;t AVC\1IJ\~, Sill Ie 'to()
Se<J.LL!t:.• W /\ I)S 104-1 U61
(lO(l) n()-6~SJ
"["rv (2.06) 2LO-68S2
no FAX PO(i) (i911

Ms. Barbara MUJlson 408N.15thSt. Coeur D' Alene lD 83814

Charge No. 38CAOOn~ Charging Party

ShermaJl rGA 1211 Sherman AVel1LLe Coeur D' Alene 11) 83814

Respondent

DETERMINATiON

Under the authority vested in me by the COlllmission'~ procedural regulations, I hereby issue on
behal r or the Commission the lollowing detellllinalioll as to the merits of the subject cbarge.

Respondent is an mLployer within the meaning of Title VU oflhe Civil Rights Act of 1964. as amended (Title VII), and timeliness, deferral, and all other jurisdictional requirements have been md. Charging Party alleged that Respondent discriminated against her in violation of Title Vll in that she was subjected to sexual harassment, disability disClimination, and retaliation, and that she was forced to quit her employment as a result.

1 have considered all the evidence :1I1d have determined that there is reasonable cause to helieve
that violations have occurred as to sexmd. harassment, retaliation, and constnlctive discharge. I. have dctermined that there is no reasonable cause to believe that disability discrimination occurred.

Having determincd that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission now invites the parties the parties to join with it in collective efforts toward aiust resolution oflhis matter. A representative of this office will be in contact with each party in the ncar liltnrc to begin the conciliation process,

When the Respondcnt declines to entcr into settlement discussions, or when the Cmnmi"ion's representative lor any other reason is unable to secure a settlement acceptahle to the office Direelor, the Director shall so ini(lnn the parli"s in writing and advise them oflhe COUIt enforcement altemative available to the Charging Party, aggrieved persons. and the Commission.
" ,. On Behalf of the Commission: iI,. ' .1"', l,.iM,'~\- fl,\" d.evvt,~j
J NETTE M. LEINO Dl trict Director ec: Jeffrey A. Child, Attorney for I{espondenl

• PAYMENT SCHEDULE

BARBARA MUNSON

Gross Amount Due Paid 10/B/Ol Paid 10/12/02
Remaining Unpaid Balance

$46,000.00 -$ 9,000.00 -$ 4,000.00
$33.000.00

KIMBERLY PIERCE
BRANPAL
$40,000.00 -$ 5,000.00
S 4.000.00
$3l,999· 00

JO MUNSON
$10,500.00 -$ 3,500.00 -$ 4.000.00
S 3,000,00

Interest @ 7% to 9/1/03 (324 days) Principal due Total due 9/1/03
Remaining unpaid Balance

:;; 2,050.52
$ ~,QQQ,QQ
$ 6,050.52
~22,QQO.oQ

$ 1,926.25 $ i,OQO.QO $ 5,926.25
~27,00Q,01l

:;; 186.41
$ 3 , 000.00 $ 3,186.41

$

,00

Interest @ 7% to 9/1/04 (365 days) Principal due Total due 9/1/04
Remaining Unpaid Balance

$ 2,030.00 $ 4.000,00 $ 6,030.00
$25,000.00

$ 1,890.00 $ 4.QOO·00 $ 5,890.00
$23,009,09

Interest @ 7% to 9/1/05 (365 days) Principal due Total due 9/1/05
Remain;j.ng Unpaid Balance

:;; 1.,750.00 $25.000.00 $26,750.00

$

.00

$ 1,610.00 $23,OOQ.00 $24,610.00

$

.00

PAYMENT SCHEDULE
P.t..r.DIl\IIiII1:tmeIJt ~III

Lx :3

• •

•

•

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
This notice is being posted pursuant to an agreement between RALPH'S INC., DBA SHERMAN, IGA AND IGA, INC. and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 are enforced by the EEOC and require the following:
That there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of the employee's race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age (over age 40), or disability with respect to hiring, firing, compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against any employees or applicants for employment because they have opposed a practice or because they have made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under these statutes.
Ralph's Inc., dba Sherman, IGA and IGA, Inc. will institute a training program to train managers and employees regarding the requirements of the above statutes, with particular emphasis on sexual harassment and disability discrimination.
Ralph's Inc., dba Sherman, IGA and IGA, Inc. has posted this notice because the company supports and will comply with these federal laws in all respects and will not take any retaliatory action against employees because they have exercised their rights under the law.
DATED: ____________________
RALPH'S INC., DBA SHERMAN IGA AND IGA, INC.

• • • • United States District Court

ja

for the

District of Idaho

October 18, 2002

* * CLERK'S CERTIFICA'l'E OF MAILING * *

Re: 2:01-cv-00157

I certify that a copy of the attached document was mailed or faxed to the following named persons:

A Luis Lucero Jr, Esq. 1-206-220-6911 US EQUAIJ EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office
909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061

John F Stanley, Esq.

1-206-220-6911

US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Seattle District Office

909 First Ave #400

Seattle, WA 98104-1061

Jeffrey A Child, Esq. 212 S Eleventh St #1 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814

Christine M Weaver, Esq.
MILLER DEVLIN MCLEAN & WEAVER 201 W North River Dr #500 Spokane, WA 99201-2266

1-509-328-6436

______Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill
...---' Judge Edward J. Lodge ______,chief Magistrate Judge I,arry M. Boyle
.......-. Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams

Date:

Cameron S. Burke, Clerk

BY: \Depu

erk)

 
 District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

Page 1 of 5

RFSETL, TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Idaho (LIVE Database)Version 3.0.4 (CDA)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:01-cv-00157-EJL

EEOC v. Ralph's, Inc. Assigned to: Honorable Edward J. Lodge Demand: $0 Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Date Filed: 04/11/2001 Date Terminated: 10/18/2002 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by A Luis Lucero, Jr US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6883 Fax: 1-206-220-6911 Email: luis.lucero@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbara J Standal US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6883 TERMINATED: 07/01/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Freeman Stanley US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6883 Fax: 1-206-220-6911 Email: john.stanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zulema Hinojos-Fall US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793885735569535-L_353_0-1

6/7/2007

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

Page 2 of 5

V. Defendant Ralph's, Inc. doing business as Sherman IGA doing business as IGA, Inc.
Intervenor Defendant William L Peterson
Intervenor Defendant Jane Doe Peterson
Intervenor Defendant IGA, Inc
Intervenor Kimberly Pierce

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6883 TERMINATED: 07/01/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey Andrew Child CHILD AND FISHER 212 S Eleventh St #1 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 (208) 667-4571 Email: chandfi@imbris.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey Andrew Child (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey Andrew Child (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey Andrew Child (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christine M Weaver MILLER DEVLIN MCLEAN & WEAVER 201 W North River Dr #500 Spokane, WA 99201-2266 (509) 327-5591 Fax: 1-509-328-6436 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793885735569535-L_353_0-1

6/7/2007

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

Page 3 of 5

Intervenor Barbara Munson

represented by Christine M Weaver (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/11/2001 04/12/2001 04/26/2001 04/26/2001 05/02/2001
05/11/2001 05/11/2001 05/29/2001 05/29/2001
05/31/2001 06/04/2001 06/08/2001 06/11/2001 07/02/2001
07/02/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued) (jml) (Entered: 04/26/2001)

2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiff regarding complaint, summons, cover sheet (jml) (Entered: 04/26/2001)

3 MOTION to intervene (jml)

4 NOTICE of Availability of Magistrate and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for plaintiff re complaint [1-1] (jml)

5 LITIGATION ORDER by Honorable Edward J. Lodge and Referral to a Magistrate Judge ; Teleconf set for 7/11/01 10:00 am , Case referred to Magistrate Mikel H. Williams for all pretrial matters. (cc: all counsel) (ja)

6 RESPONSE by def to the motion to intervene as plaintiffs dated 4/19/01 [3-1] (ja) (Entered: 05/14/2001)

7 OBJECTION by defs to motion to intervene as plaintiffs [3-1] (ja) (Entered: 05/14/2001)

8 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to intervene as Plaintiffs [3-1] (ja) (Entered: 05/30/2001)

9 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by intervenors Kimberly Pierce and Barbara Munson in support of intervenors' supplementary motion for intervention [8-1] (ja) (Entered: 05/30/2001)

10 ANSWER by def, Ralph's, Inc., d/b/a Sherman IGA, and IGA, Inc., (ja) (Entered: 06/04/2001)

11 NOTICE of Availability of Magistrate and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for def Ralph's, Inc. re answer [10-1] (ja)

12 RESPONSE by def Ralph's, Inc. to motion to intervene [3-1] (wm) (Entered: 06/11/2001)

13 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FORM - LITIGATION PLAN (wm) (Entered: 06/12/2001)

14 SCHEDULING ORDER by Honorable Edward J. Lodge; Telephonic Scheduling Conference vacated ; Discovery ddl set for 2/28/02 ; Jury Trial set for 9/24/02 at 9:30 am in CDA Case referred to Magistrate Mikel H. Williams for all pretrial matters. (cc: all counsel) (ja)

15 MEDIATION ORDER by Honorable Edward J. Lodge : (cc: all counsel)

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793885735569535-L_353_0-1

6/7/2007

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

Page 4 of 5

07/16/2001 07/16/2001 07/18/2001
08/16/2001 12/28/2001 04/01/2002 04/01/2002 04/01/2002 04/05/2002 04/24/2002 04/24/2002
04/30/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/07/2002
06/18/2002

(ja)
16 ORDER by Magistrate Mikel H. Williams granting motion to intervene [3-1] (cc: all counsel) (ja) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
17 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT for damages (ja) Modified on 07/18/2001 (Entered: 07/18/2001)
18 NOTICE of Availability of Magistrate and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for intervenor Kimberly Pierce, Barbara Munson re complaint [17-1] (ja)
19 DESIGNATION OF LAY AND EXPERT WITNESSES by pla and intvp (ja)
20 JOINT MEDIATION STATEMENT (ja) (Entered: 12/31/2001)
21 MOTION by defs to dismiss damage claims (ja) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
22 AFFIDAVIT of Jeffrey A. Child re: motion to dismiss damage claims [21-1] (ja) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
23 MEMORANDUM by defs in support of motion to dismiss damage claims [21-1] (ja) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
24 JOINT REQUEST by intervenors Kimberly Pierce and Barbara Munson for judicially conducted settlement conference (ja)
25 JOINT RESPONSE by pla and intervenors to motion to dismiss damage claims filed on 4/1/02 [21-1] (ja) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
26 AFFIDAVIT of Christine M. Weaver in support of pla EEOC and plaintervenors' joint response to the motion to dismiss damage claims filed on 4/1/02 [25-1] (ja) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
27 ORDER OF REFERENCE by Judge Mikel H. Williams: Settlement conference referred to Judge Larry M. Boyle (cc: all counsel) (ja)
29 REPLY by defs to response to motion to dismiss damage claims filed on 4/1/02 [21-1] (ja) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
30 SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of Jeffrey A. Child regarding motion reply [29-1] (ja) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
31 OBJECTIONS by def to affidavit of Christine M. Weaver [26-1] (ja) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
28 ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Judge Larry M. Boyle ; Settlement conference set for 7/9/02 in CDA before LMB; Case Mgmt ddl set for 7/2/02 for parties to submit summation in camera (cc: all counsel) (ja)
32 NOTICE RE-SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ; Settlement conference set for 7/9/02 has been vacated and reset for 8/29/02 at 10:00 in CDA; Settlement brochures are due in chambers by 8/22/02 (cc: all counsel) (ja) (Entered: 06/21/2002)

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793885735569535-L_353_0-1

6/7/2007

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

Page 5 of 5

07/01/2002 07/12/2002 07/22/2002 08/20/2002 08/22/2002 08/27/2002 08/29/2002 09/20/2002
10/18/2002

33 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Zulema Hinojos-Fall for EEOC, attorney Barbara J Standal for EEOC and substituting attorney John F Stanley (ja) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
34 ORDER by Judge Mikel H. Williams finding moot the motion for judicially conducted settlement conference [24-1] (cc: all counsel) (wm)
35 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that motion to dismiss damage claims be denied [21-1] by Judge Mikel H. Williams (cc: all counsel) (ja) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
36 NOTICE OF HEARING ; Settlement conference set for 9/20/02 at 1:00pm ; Case Mgmt ddl set for 9/13/02 for settlement brochures due in chambers (cc: all counsel) (ja) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
37 ORDER by Honorable Edward J. Lodge adopting REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [35-1]; denying motion to dismiss [21-1] (cc: all counsel) (ja)
38 JOINT MOTION by pla, defs, and intervenors requesting continuance of trial date (ja) (Entered: 08/29/2002)
39 ORDER by Honorable Edward J. Lodge on joint motion to continue trial [38-1] ; Jury trial reset for 11/12/02 at 9:30am in CDA (cc: all counsel) (ja)
40 MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE - held 9/20/02; Parties were able to settle this matter and shall submit settlement papers to the Court; Trial is set in this matter for 11/12/02- LMB (ja) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
41 CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION by Honorable Edward J. Lodge terminating case (cc: all counsel) (ja)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

06/07/2007 09:08:33

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:01-cv-00157-EJL

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

0.24

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793885735569535-L_353_0-1

6/7/2007