rITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED S TES

EQUAL EM LOYMENTOP RTUNITY

COMMISSI N,

10 S. Ho ard Street

Third Fl or

Baltimor,

Maryland 21201

Plaiptiff,
v.

Civil Action No. COMPLAINT

WORTHING N, MOORE JACOBS, INC.
103.16 Ba imore Na nal Pike, Suite B
Ellicott City, MD 2 042

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Defepdant.

NATURE OF ACTION

Thi~ is an act~on under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 "T~tle VII" , I as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, .§.t.. seg., and Titl~ I of the Pivil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section

1981A, t~ correct ~lawful employment practices based on sex and

retaliat~on

and to fnake whole Elizabeth Ford. Jill Hennen,

Melanie ~andYI Laur~ Thomas, Nancy Guzman, Lynne Gears, Diana Bantam, ~nd other f~male employees of Defendant Worthington, Moore & J[acobs. AS! is discussed in more detail below, the

aforemen~ioned fema~e employees were subjected to sexual

harassme9t by Defen~ant

They also suffered retaliation

includin~ economic reprisal and discharge, for complaining

about

the hara~sment

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdict~on of this Court is invoked pursuant to

Sections 1451, 1331, 133..7, 1343, and 1345. This action is

authoriz~d and inst~tuted pursuant to Section 70-6(f {I and (3

of Title IvII I 42 U.~.C. Section 2000e-S{f)

(~), (3 , and Section

1.02 of t~e Civil Ri~hts Act of 19.91, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981A
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were

committe9 within thp jurisdiction

of the United States District

Court fo~ the Distr~ct of Maryland, Northern Division.

3. Plaintiff~

the Equal Employment Opportunity

{-the Co~ission"

is an agency of the United States

Commission of America

charged ~ith the adtninistration,

interpretation,

and enforcement

of Title IvII and isl expressly authorized to bring this action by

Section ~O6 (f) (1 ~nd (3 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e5 (f) (1) ~d (3
4. At all re~evant times, Defendant Worthington, Moore & Jacobs '~Defendant " has continuously been and is now a Delaware

corporat~on doing bpsiness in the State of Maryland and the City

of Ellic9tt City, apd has had at least fifteen employees

5. AX all re~evant times, Defendant Worthington, Moore &

Jacobs h~s continuopsly been an employer engaged in an industry

affectin~

commerce ~nder Section

VII, 42 q.S.C. Sect~on 2000e-(b),

101 (b) I (9), and (h) of Title (g), and {h.>

2

STATEMENTOF CLAIMS
6. More thanl thirty days prior to the institution

of this

lawsuit, IElizabeth ford. Jill Hennen, Melanie Sandy, Laura

Thomas, ~nd Nancy G~zman filed charges with the Commission

alleging Iviolations!

of Title VII by Defendant Worthington,

Moore

& Jacobs.1 All cond~tion8 precedent to the institution

of this

lawsuit ~ave been f~lfilled

~

Since at ~east July 1999, Defendant Worthington, Moore

& Jacobs Ihas engagefi in unlawful employment practices

at

Ellicott

ICity, Maryfland,

and Dover, Delaware,

offices in

violatioq of Sectiop8 703(a) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

Section ~OOOe-2(1 ~nd 2000e-3(a). The practices include

followin~:
a. Subj~cting Elizabeth Ford. Jill Hennen, Melanie

Sandy, L~ura Thomas!, Nancy Guzman, Lynne Gears, Diana Bantam, and

other fe~le emploYFes to unwelcome and objectively

offensive

verbal artd physical! conduct of a sexual nature by Sam Muffoletto

the comp~ny presidept

President Muffoletto's

sex-based conduct

towards ~he above-n~med women created a hostile working

environm~nt and cul~inated in tangible employment actions, such

as reduc~ion of co~ensation,

removal of significant

job duties,

and discliarge

b. SubjFcting Melanie Sandy and other female

employee~ to unwelcpme and objectively offensive verbal ~

3

physical conduct ofl a sexual nature by Robert Muffoletto,

a

II

company ~fficer

R~bert Muffoletto's

sex-based conduct towards

Ms sand~ created al hostile working environment.

c. Subj~cting Melanie Sandy and other female

employee~ to unwelcpme and objectively offensive verbal and

physical conduct of! a sexual nature by Mark Muffoletto,

then a

company tqanager. M~rk Muffoletto's

sex-based condUct towards Ms

Sandy cr~ated a ho8~ile working environment

d. Reta~iating against Elizabeth Ford, Jill Hennen,

Laura Thqrnas, Lynnel Gears, and other female employees for their

complain~s about se~ual harassment by taking adverse actions that

resulted

lin a loss ~f income
e. Reta~iating against

Nancy Guzman and other

female

employee~ for their! complaints about sexual harassment by

removing Isignifica4

job duties.

Reta~iating

against Elizabeth Ford, Jill Hennen,

Melanie ~andy I Lau~ Thomas Nancy Guzman, and other female

employee~ for thei~ complaints about sexual harassment by

terrninat~ng their e~ployment or by deliberately

creating

intolera!:tle workingj conditions to effectuate a constructive

discharg~ 8
paragr~~
9

The unla~ul employment practices 7 were i~entional The unla~ul employment practices

complained of tn complained of in

4

paragrap~ 13 were dpne with malice or with reckless indifference

to the f~derally ptptected rights of Elizabeth Ford Jill Hennen,

Melanie ~andy, Laur~ Thomas, Nancy Guzman, Lynne Gears, Diana

Santoro, ~nd other f~male employees

WHE$FORE
Court

I thel Commission respectfully

requests that this

A Grant a p~rmanent injunction enjoining Defendant

Worthing~on,

Moore ~ Jacobs, its officers,

successors,

assigns

and all ~ersons in pctive concert or participation

with it, from

engaging lin sexual ~arassment and from engaging in retaliation

against ~rnployees wpo oppose practices made unlawful by Title

VIIi B

Order DefFndant Worthington,

Moore & Jacobs to

institut~ eradicat~

and carry! out policies,

practices,

sexual harassment and retaliation,

and programs which and prevent sexual

harassme~t and reta~iation from occurring in the future; and which er~dicate the! effects of past and present sexual harassment

and reta~iationi
c. Order Def~ndant Worthington,

Moore & Jacobs to make

whole El~zabeth Forp, Jill Hennen, Melanie Sandy, Laura Thomas,

Nancy Gu~man I Lynne! Gears, Diana Bantom, and other female employee~ by provid~ng appropriate backpay with prejudgment

interest

land front :t>ay in amounts to be determined

at trial,

other af~irrnative r~lief necessary to eradicate the effects

and
of

5

its unla~ful emplo~ent practices;
D. Order Def~ndant Worthington,

Moore & Jacoba to make

whole Elilzabeth FOr~t Jill Hennen, Melanie Sandy, Laura Thomas,

Nancy Gu~n, Lynne! Gears, Diana Bantom, and other female

employee~1 by provi~ing compensation for pecuniary and nonpecunilary losses~ including emotional pain, suffering anxiety, Idepression~ embarrassment, degradation, and humiliation;
E. Order Def~ndant Worthington, Moore & Jacobs to pay to

Elizabet~ Ford. Ji1.~ Hennen, Melanie Sandy, Laura Thomas, Nancy

Guzman, ~e Gears~ Diana Bantam, and other female employees

punitive Idamages for its callous indifference

to their federally

protecte~ right to ~e free from sexual harassment and retaliation

in the w9rkplace;
F. Grant sucp further
and

relief

as the Court deems proper;

G Award the~Commi88ion its costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Icommissionl requests a jury trial on all questions of

fact rai~ed by the Fornplaint

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
6

GERALDS. KIEL
Regional ~-

~
.
Supervisory Trial Atto~ey
ccc-
MARIA LUISA MOROCCO Trial Attorney Federal Bar No. 24357

~~~~~I1.("LI_~/~
Trial Attorney Federal Bar. No. 15562

UNITED STATES

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

10 S. Howard Street

3rd Floor

Baltimore,

Maryland

21201

Phone: (410) 962-4260

Fax: (410) 962-4270

7

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
NORTHERN DIVISION

)

UNITED STATES

)

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

)

EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

~d

)

)

LAURA THOMAS,

)

)

Intervenor )

v.

)

)

)

WORTHINGTON, MOORE, & )

JACOBS, INC.

)

)

Defend~t. )

)

)

Civil Action No. 04-CV-3127 Judge Legg

COMPLAINT OF INTERVENOR LAURA THOMAS Intervenor Laura Thomas, by counsel, complains against Defend~t Worthington, Moore, & Jacobs, Inc., as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Intervening Plaintiff Laura Thomas ("Ms. Thomas") brings this action against her former employer, Worthington, Moore, & Jacobs, Inc. ("Worthington" or "Defend~t"), for declaratory judgment, perm~ent injunctive relief, and damages to remedy Worthington's discrimination against her on the basis of sex ~d its retaliation against her for her complaints of discriminatory treatment. This action arises under Title

1

VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended by 42 U.S.c. § 1981a ("Title VII").
2. Worthington knowingly subjected Ms. Thomas to a hostile work environment created by a constant stream ofunwelcome and offensive sexual advances and other verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature by its President, Sam Muffoletto ("Muffoletto"), including offers of money in exchange for sex, propositions to spend nights in hotels, and lewd commentary about her body. These actions began immediately upon Ms. Thomas' acceptance of a position as Vice President of Sales at Worthington and continued unabated despite Ms. Thomas' clear and consistent rejections of Muffoletto's advances.
3. Many of Muffoletto's advances were accompanied by work-related promises or threats contingent on Ms. Thomas' acceptance or rejection of the advance. When Ms. Thomas rejected Muffoletto's advances, Worthington punished her in tangible aspects ofthe compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of her employment, due to her refusal to acquiesce. For example, after one occasion on which Ms. Thomas refused to spend the weekend with Muffoletto, he ensured that Worthington removed valuable client leads from her queue, thus impeding her ability to make new sales and thereby obtain commissions.
4. Ms. Thomas' ability to work was hampered by the constant need to deflect Muffoletto's unwelcome advances. Ms. Thomas worked in an atmosphere of constant intimidation, terrified that she would lose her job if she did not accept Muffoletto's unwelcome sexual advances. Because Ms. Thomas has a mentally retarded daughter, she
2

was especially reliant on the income she earned at Worthington. Even after Ms. Thomas expressed her concerns to Muffoletto and others, however the harassment continued.
5. Unable to perform her job in the face of this harassment, Ms. Thomas attempted to leave Worthington with a semblance of economic security by reporting the discrimination again and requesting a settlement and positive recommendation. In response, Worthington retaliated against Ms. Thomas by cutting her base salary in half, monitoring and micromanaging every aspect of her daily work, changing employee policies and procedures as they applied to her, and ultimately, terminating her.
6. Shortly after her termination, Ms. Thomas filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), in which she alleged that Worthington had discriminated against her on the basis of sex and had retaliated against her for her complaints of discrimination.
7. The EEOC conducted an extensive investigation and in August 2003 issued a probable cause determination that confirmed Ms. Thomas' allegations, finding that Ms. Thomas "was sexually harassed by the company President" and that Worthington "subjected [Ms. Thomas] to adverse employment actions, such as removing client leads, reducing her pay, and ultimately discharging her, because she refused the President's sexual advances and engaged in protected activity." EEOC Determination, (attached as Exhibit A). Specifically, the EEOC determined:
An analysis of the evidence shows that Charging Party was sexually harassed by the company President. The harassment included repeatedly being subjected to sexual propositions and requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature. The evidence shows that Charging Party refused the President's sexual
3

--------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
advances, informed him that his conduct was unwelcome and offensive, and personally complained to other management officials about the harassment. However the harassment did not cease and Respondent did nothing to address the situation until it was contacted by Charging Party's attorney. Sufficient evidence exists to conclude that Respondent subjected Charging Party to adverse employment actions, such as removing client leads, reducing her pay, and ultimately discharging her, because she refused the President's sexual advances and engaged in protected activity. Exhibit A. 8. The EEOC also determined that Worthington had discriminated against other female employees, finding that "[t]he evidence showed that other similarly situated females were subjected to sexual harassment by Respondent, and that they suffered retaliation in the form of adverse employment actions, including economic reprisal and discharge." Exhibit A.
9. After an unsuccessful attempt at conciliation, the EEOC filed this suit alleging that Worthington discriminated and retaliated against Ms. Thomas and at least six other female employees. Based on a thorough, year-long investigation, the EEOC alleges in this action that Muffoletto sexually harassed Ms. Thomas and at least six other female employees, "creat[ing] a hostile work environment and culminat[ing] in tangible employment actions, such as a reduction of compensation, removal of significant job duties, and discharge." EEOC Complaint, 7(a). Further, the EEOC alleges that two relatives of Muffoletto, Robert Muffoletto, a Worthington officer, and Mark Muffoletto, a Worthington manager, sexually harassed female employees. Id.' 7(b)-(c). Finally, the EEOC alleges that Worthington retaliated against Ms. Thomas and at least six other female employees for their complaints about sexual harassment, including by "taking adverse actions that resulted in a loss of income," "removing significant job duties," and
4

"creating intolerable working conditions to effectuate a constructive discharge." Id. ~ 7(d)-(f).
PARTIES 10. Intervening Plaintiff Laura Thomas is a resident ofthe State of Maryland. From approximately May 2002 to May 2003, Ms. Thomas was employed by Defendant Worthington as a Vice President of Sales at its office at 10316 Baltimore National Pike, Suite B, Ellicott City, Maryland 21042.
11. Defendant Worthington, Moore, & Jacobs is a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Maryland, in Howard County, and Ellicott City. At all relevant times, Worthington has had at least fifteen employees.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3).
13. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 2000e(5)(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Sexual Harassment by the President of Worthington 14. Ms. Thomas has been in the field of collection and credit sales for over a decade. Among her many accomplishments in this field, she has maintained and serviced hundreds of clients, handled accounts with annual gross revenues of over a million dollars, sold nationwide accounts, and developed custom products.
5

15. In April 2002, Ms. Thomas interviewed for a position as Vice President of Sales at Worthington and was extended an offer. Ms. Thomas was especially pleased to be offered this position because she needed the income to support her mentally retarded daughter. Approximately two weeks later, on April 17,2002, Ms. Thomas began work at Worthington.
16. Muffoletto's harassment of Ms. Thomas began immediately upon Worthington's offer of employment. The day Worthington offered Ms. Thomas a position as Vice President of Sales, Muffoletto invited her to dinner to discuss her employment contract. During dinner, Muffoletto never mentioned her contract. After dinner, Muffoletto insisted on following Ms. Thomas to her home, purportedly to discuss the paperwork regarding her employment. He arrived at her home with a bottle of wine. After Ms. Thomas signed her employment contract, Muffoletto inquired "now that we have business out of the way, what about me and you?" Ms. Thomas immediately rejected Muffoletto's advance, indicating that she was married and that there was not to be a "me and you." Ms. Thomas believed at the time that her firm response would end Muffoletto's inappropriate behavior.
17. Beginning on Ms. Thomas' first day at Worthington, Muffoletto repeatedly asked her to spend time with him outside of work and suggested that they have a sexual relationship. Ms. Thomas repeatedly rejected his advances, providing excuses and repeating that she was married.
18. Ms. Thomas was intimidated by Muffoletto and found it difficult to perform her job in the face of Muffoletto's repeated sexual propositions. Moreover,
6

Muffoletto's behavior humiliated and embarrassed Ms. Thomas, and made her prone to fits of crying. Muffoletto's continued advances in the face of her clear rejections made Ms. Thomas fearful and anxious that if she did not accept his advances, she would lose her job. The financial demands of her family situation made unemployment especially difficult for Ms. Thomas.
19. Muffoletto's harassment of Ms. Thomas was both severe and pervasive. For example, a single week included the following instances ofharassment:
a. On May 22, 2002, Muffoletto told Ms. Thomas that if she went to the home of Worthington Vice President of Sales Rob Sowers for the weekend, Muffoletto would leave his door open in case Ms. Thomas wanted to sleep in his room.
b. On May 24, 2002, Muffoletto asked Ms. Thomas to go away with him for the weekend, asked Ms. Thomas why she didn't tell him that she wanted him, and complained that no one wanted him.
c. On May 28, 2002, Muffoletto began a barrage of harassing comments by telling Ms. Thomas that he had had many opportunities to date in the last decade, but wanted only her. Muffoletto then told Ms. Thomas "I made $400 an hour as an attorney, but I'll give you two hours free."
d. That same day, Muffoletto offered to be Ms. Thomas' "sugar daddy," informing her that "sex would definitely have to be part of
7

it." He insisted that Ms. Thomas knew "it was going to happen" and that she should stop "playing stupid."
e. Later in the afternoon, when discussing his grandson coming to Ms. Thomas' home to set up her home office, Muffoletto implied that there would be a sexual encounter by singing "Mrs. Robinson." Muffoletto also offered Ms. Thomas time off the following day in exchange for going out with him that evening.
20. On approximately May 29,2002, Ms. Thomas confided in a colleague, Patricia Didden, that she was being harassed by Muffoletto. Ms. Thomas explained that she was afraid that she would be fired if she did not accept Muffoletto's advances and that his harassment made it difficult for her to focus on her work. In tum, Ms. Didden informed Ms. Thomas that she had had a sexual relationship with Muffoletto. Ms. Didden repeatedly warned Ms. Thomas not to tell Muffoletto that Ms. Thomas and Ms. Didden had spoken. Ms. Didden further told Ms. Thomas that she would talk to a relative who is an employment attorney and ask what Ms. Thomas should do about Muffoletto's harassment. She repeated throughout their conversation that "this is not what you and your daughter need."
21. The following week, Muffoletto threatened and retaliated against Ms. Thomas for reporting his discriminatory conduct to Ms. Didden. Muffoletto asked Ms. Thomas "what was going on" because he "thought they were friends." Ms. Thomas explained that she was intimidated by Muffoletto and that she felt that if she did not
8

accept his advances, she would be fired, and that his conduct was so severe that it had brought her to tears.
22. Muffoletto responded by threatening Ms. Thomas, explaining that ifhe wanted to get rid of her, he would not have to fire her, but instead would make sure her client "leads" were taken away so that she would "bury herself." Muffoletto then asked Ms. Thomas to sign a letter indicating that "nothing happened" and that she had no plans to sue Worthington.
23. The following day, when Ms. Thomas arrived at work, Muffoletto informed her that she would be working from home effective immediately. Later that day, Muffoletto called Ms. Thomas at home to insist that she sign a letter stating that she would not sue Worthington. Fearful that she would lose her job if she did not acquiesce, Ms. Thomas signed the letter.
24. Despite Muffoletto's awareness that Ms. Thomas considered his conduct unwelcome and discriminatory, Muffoletto's harassment of Ms. Thomas, including unwelcome and objectively offensive verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature, continued throughout her tenure at Worthington.
25. Muffoletto humiliated Ms. Thomas by repeatedly offering her money to engage in a sexual relationship with him. For example, on July 2, 2002, Muffoletto asked Ms. Thomas why "she didn't just give in to him" so that she wouldn't have to work, could drive a BMW, and "have it all." On November 4, 2002, Muffoletto flashed a stack of fifty and hundred dollar bills and told her that if she "said yes" it could all be hers. On
9

December 9,2002, Muffoletto pulled cash out of his pocket and told Ms. Thomas the cash and his BMW could be hers if she would marry him.
26. Muffoletto made sexual comments about Ms. Thomas' body and touched her inappropriately at the office. For example, on August 6, 2002, when returning to a meeting after a break, Muffoletto walked behind Ms. Thomas and said "mmmm, mmmm, mmmm, you are losing weight." Two more times during the meeting, Muffoletto whispered to Ms. Thomas "mmmm, mmmm, mmmm." When Ms. Thomas relayed this story to her colleague Nancy Guzman, Ms. Guzman stated that whenever she was in Muffoletto's office, she saw Muffoletto looking at women's behinds and that the behavior made her so uncomfortable that she tried not to turn around when leaving Muffoletto's office. On January 8, 2003, after Worthington Vice President of Sales Anthony Nobilio referred to himself and Ms. Thomas "licking their wounds" after a harsh meeting with Muffoletto, Muffoletto called Ms. Thomas back into his office and told her that Mr. Nobilio wanted to "lick her all over." On November 4, 2002, Muffoletto inappropriately wrapped his hand around Ms. Thomas' waist and hip and began Whispering to her.
27. Throughout Ms. Thomas' tenure at Worthington, Muffoletto continued to ask her to go away with him on weekends and to go to hotels with him. For example, on July 2, 2002, Muffoletto suggested that he and Ms. Thomas go to a party on July 4th and then spend the night together at a hotel. Despite her rejection of his proposition, on July 8th, Muffoletto told Ms. Thomas that he had waited all weekend with his bags packed to go away with her.
10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------
28. On August 29, 2002, Muffoletto asked Ms. Thomas to go away with him to gamble over the weekend. He added that he did not want to remove 250 client leads from her queue, but that Mr. Nobilio was pushing for their removal because Mr. Nobilio thought she was "trouble." Mr. Nobilio denied that he made any such comment.
29. Despite Muffoletto's threat, Ms. Thomas refused to go away with him. As a result, on September 3,2002, Worthington removed 250 client leads from Ms. Thomas' queue, thereby hampering Ms. Thomas' ability to make sales and earn commissions.
30. Muffoletto continued to invite Ms. Thomas on weekend trips unrelated to work. On or about October 3, 2002, October 11, 2002, and October 17,2002, Muffoletto asked Ms. Thomas to go away with him on the upcoming weekends. On October 18, 2002, Muffoletto called Ms. Thomas at three o'clock in the afternoon and said "let's go." When Ms. Thomas responded that she was working, Muffoletto indicated that she would not have to work if she accompanied him. Ms. Thomas pleaded with Muffoletto to stop disrespecting her husband.
31. On November 14,2002, Muffoletto suggested to Ms. Thomas that they get a hotel room together after a client meeting.
32. After Ms. Thomas rejected several of Muffoletto's weekend invitations, Muffoletto attempted to construct a professional situation that would require her to vacation with him. On July 17, 2002, Muffoletto told Ms. Thomas that he was planning a tropical vacation as a prize to the top sales person. The winner of the contest, he emphasized, would be traveling with him. He immediately added that he was not
11

homosexual and did not plan on becoming homosexual. From the tone of his comments, Ms. Thomas understood that Muffoletto would make sure that she won any such contest.
33. Muffoletto otherwise used his position as Ms. Thomas' employer to force her into unwelcome intimate situations. For example, on July 31, 2002, Muffoletto asked Ms. Thomas to have dinner with him to discuss business changes and opportunities. Muffoletto inquired if Ms. Thomas had secured a babysitter and then asked "what if we're not done 'til morning?" On November 27,2002, when Ms. Thomas called Muffoletto regarding business issues, Muffoletto asked why Ms. Thomas was not drinking wine with him if she were free to talk.
34. Muffoletto used information from Ms. Thomas' employment file in order to pursue her sexually. On Sunday, December 8, 2002, Muffoletto called Ms. Thomas at home. He wished her a happy birthday and told her he had a present for her, but that she might be embarrassed to receive it at work. The next day at work, Muffoletto continued to suggest that he had a sex-related present for Ms. Thomas that he was ready to give her whenever she was willing. On January 2,2003, Muffoletto told Ms. Thomas that he had spent all Christmas day staring at the drivers' license picture she had provided for her employment file.
35. Muffoletto's sex-based conduct towards Ms. Thomas was unwelcome and objectively offensive and created intolerable working conditions. Ms. Thomas clearly expressed to Muffoletto that his advances were unwelcome and intimidating. Worthington knew that the conduct was unwelcome and discriminatory.
12

36. Worthington discriminated against Ms. Thomas on the basis of sex by subjecting her to a hostile work environment. Muffoletto's almost daily harassment, including the acts described above, was so severe and pervasive as to alter the conditions of Ms. Thomas' employment.
37. Muffoletto's sex-based conduct affected tangible aspects of her employment, including reducing her compensation. Muffoletto warned Ms. Thomas that he would punish her if she did not accept his advances. Indeed, immediately after rejecting a weekend away, Muffoletto made good on his promise to remove 250 client leads from Ms. Thomas' queue, thus limiting her ability to earn commissions.
38. Worthington did not treat any male employees in the manner it treated Ms. Thomas and other women.
39. As the EEOC found, Worthington knew or should have known about Muffoletto's discriminatory conduct, but took no remedial action.
40. Worthington purports to have a sexual harassment policy that was provided to all employees beginning on May 2,2001. Worthington never provided Ms. Thomas any written or unwritten policy, guidelines, or rules regarding sexual harassment. Nor was Ms. Thomas made aware of any procedure for lodging or resolving complaints of discrimination or harassment.
41. Despite Muffoletto's harassment, Ms. Thomas had substantial success at Worthington. For example, Ms. Thomas made one ofthe largest sales in the history of
13

Worthington. Moreover, Ms. Thomas grew several existing accounts and was instrumental in opening new accounts.
B. Retaliation Against Ms. Thomas 42. Ms. Thomas became increasingly despondent, fearful, and anxious as a result of Muffoletto's harassment. With no relief in sight, Ms. Thomas hired an attorney and, on February 27,2003, sent a letter to Worthington describing her discriminatory treatment.
43. Immediately thereafter, Worthington began a campaign of retaliation against Ms. Thomas by subjecting her to adverse employment actions, including cutting her salary and eventually discharging her, as a result of her complaint.
44. Within days of receiving the letter from Ms. Thomas' attorney, Worthington sent a response threatening to sue Ms. Thomas for tortious interference with economic interests and slander.
45. Approximately one month after Ms. Thomas' written complaint of discrimination, on March 31, 2003, Worthington cut Ms. Thomas' monthly salary in half. Although Ms. Thomas asked for a clear accounting of her sales because she knew that the pay cut was unjustified, she never received a satisfactory accounting.
46. As a result of Ms. Thomas' written complaint, David Caprario, CEO of Worthington, began overseeing and monitoring Ms. Thomas in an unprecedented and unreasonable fashion. For example, he monitored her daily phone calls and sent her harassing emails on days following those on which he believed her call volume to be low.
14

Similarly, although Ms. Thomas had previously arranged and executed site visits to clients without permission, Caprario chastised her for the same after her complaint of discrimination. Further, Caprario personally monitored Ms. Thomas' leave, though he had never done so previously.
47. On May 16,2003, Ms. Thomas concluded that she could not continue to work under the continuing conditions of sexual harassment and retaliation. She had endured over a year of harassment and now her salary had been cut in half and she faced a maze of ever shifting personnel policies.
48. When Ms. Thomas told Caprario that she intended to resign as of July 11, 2003 as a result of Worthington's discrimination and retaliation, she was fired effective immediately.
49. At all times relevant to the events described above, Worthington's President, Muffoletto, and other employees were acting within the scope of their employment as employees, agents and/or representatives of Worthington. The discriminatory actions described above were carried out (a) at the direction of and with the consent, encouragement, knowledge, and ratification of Worthington; (b) under Worthington's authority, control, and supervision; and/or (c) within the scope of the employees' employment.
50. Worthington's actions, as set forth above, were willful, wanton and malicious, and were undertaken with reckless disregard for Ms. Thomas' rights.
15

--------------------------------------------------------,

C. The EEOC Proceedings 51. On May 20,2003, Ms. Thomas timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC.

52. On August 6, 2004, the EEOC issued a determination in Ms. Thomas' favor. The EEOC concluded, in part:

An analysis ofthe evidence shows that Charging Party was sexually harassed by the company President. The harassment included repeatedly being subjected to sexual propositions and requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature. The evidence shows that Charging Party refused the President's sexual advances, informed him that his conduct was unwelcome and offensive, and personally complained to other management officials about the harassment. However the harassment did not cease and Respondent did nothing to address the situation until it was contacted by Charging Party's attorney. Sufficient evidence exists to conclude that Respondent subjected Charging Party to adverse employment actions, such as removing client leads, reducing her pay, and ultimately discharging her, because she refused the President's sexual advances and engaged in protected activity.
Exhibit A.
53. The EEOC further determined that "[t]he evidence showed that other
similarly situated females were subjected to sexual harassment by Respondent, and that
they suffered retaliation in the form of adverse employment actions, including economic
reprisal and discharge." Exhibit A.

54. 30,2004.

After unsuccessful conciliation, the EEOC filed this action on September

16

D. Harm Suffered by Ms. Thomas as a Result of Worthington's Discrimination
55. As a result of Worthington's discriminatory conduct, Ms. Thomas suffered, and will in the future suffer, irreparable loss and injury including, but not limited to, economic loss, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress, and a deprivation of her right to equal employment opportunity.
56. Ms. Thomas' feelings of fear, distrust and insecurity as a result of her treatment by Worthington continue to affect her professional career even after her departure from Worthington. She feels anxious around male employers and is uncomfortable interacting with them. Worthington so degraded Ms. Thomas that she has experienced a loss of the confidence and self-esteem that are necessary to have an effective sales career, and has thus left her chosen profession.
COUNT I
Sex Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. (Hostile Work Environment and Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment) 57. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
58. Worthington's actions, described above, subjected Ms. Thomas to differential terms and conditions of employment because of her sex, in violation of Ms. Thomas' right to equal opportunity under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.
59. Worthington's discrimination, described above, is a series of separate but related acts that amounts to a continuing violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
17

COUNT II Retaliation under 42 U.S.c. 2000e et seq. 60. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
61. As described above, Worthington retaliated against Ms. Thomas, including by reducing her salary and discharging her, because she opposed and complained about discriminatory employment practices, in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Ms. Thomas requests that this Court enter judgment in her favor and award her the following relief: (1) Declare that the actions of Defendant described above constituted discrimination on the basis of sex and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.;
(2) Order injunctive relief requiring Defendant to provide sexual harassment training and a sexual harassment policy to all management and employees;
(3) Award Ms. Thomas all lost salary, bonuses, commissions, and benefits that she would have received had Defendant not engaged in unlawful discrimination and retaliation, including appropriate back pay and front pay;
(4) Award Ms. Thomas compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial for her loss and injury including, but not limited to, economic loss, humiliation,
18

embarrassment, emotional distress, and deprivation of her right to equal employment opportunity regardless of her sex;
(5) Award Ms. Thomas punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial that would punish Defendant for its willful, wanton, and reckless conduct and that would effectively deter Defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future;
(6) Award Ms. Thomas prejudgment interest; (7) Award Ms. Thomas reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action and the administrative claims that preceded it; and (8) Award such other relief as the Court deems appropriate and just.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiff requests trial by jury as to all issues in this case. Dated: February 3, 2005
Jo P. ReIman (Bar No. 11482) LMAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1225 19th St., N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 728-1888 (202) 728-0848 (fax)
19

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (Northern Division)

NANCY GUZMAN

*

21015 Bedela Way

*

Germantown, Maryland 20876

*

Plaintiff-Intervenor

*

*

v.

* Civil Action No.: L-04-3127

*

WORTHINGTON, MOORE &

*

JACOBS, INC.

*

10316 Baltimore National Pike

*

Suite B

*

Ellicott City, Maryland 21042

*

Defendant

*

****************************************************************************

INTERVENOR COMPLAINT

Nancy Guzman, respectfully files this Intervenor Complaint with this Court, alleging that

the Defendant discriminated against her because of her gender, and engaged in unlawful sexual

harassment and retaliation, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as

amended.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a written

determination, finding that:

An analysis of the evidence shows that [Plaintiff Nancy Guzman] was sexually harassed…Sufficient evidence exists to conclude that [Defendant] subjected [Plaintiff Nancy Guzman] to adverse employment actions, such as removing most of her responsibilities and ultimately discharging her, because she refused the [Defendant]President’s sexual advances and engaged in protected activity. The evidence showed that other similarly situated females were subjected to sexual harassment by [Defendant], and that they suffered retaliation in the form of adverse employment actions, including economic reprisal and discharge.

EXHIBIT 1 – U.S. EEOC DETERMINATION

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
NANCY GUZMAN 1. Nancy Guzman is an adult resident and citizen of the State of Maryland. 2. Ms. Guzman worked for the Defendant, as its employee, from July 2002 until her
unlawful termination in November 2003. THE DEFENDANT 3. The Defendant is a for-profit corporation, doing business in the State of Maryland. 4. Defendant, at all relevant times to this lawsuit, has employed at least 15 employees
and been engaged in interstate commerce. JURISDICTION & VENUE 5. The jurisdiction of this Court is based on federal civil rights employment
discrimination laws presenting federal questions. 6. Venue is proper because the unlawful acts and occurrences took place in this District. 7. Ms. Guzman has complied with all prerequisites for bringing this lawsuit. EMPLOYMENT FACTS 8. In approximately July 2002, Ms. Guzman started working for the Defendant in
Ellicott City, Maryland. 9. Ms. Guzman was employed as the manager of administration. 10. Throughout her employment, Ms. Guzman was the target of unlawful sexual
harassment and retaliation by the Defendant. 11. The harassment created a hostile environment and was ongoing and continual. 12. Defendant’s officers and managers continually subjected Ms. Guzman to
unwelcomed and offensive sex-based comments, sexual advances and inappropriate conduct.
2

13. Defendant did not have nor implement any effective policy prohibiting sexual harassment or one that encouraged employees to come forward without fear of retaliation.
DAMAGE TO MS. GUZMAN CAUSED BY DEFENDANT 14. Ms. Guzman was placed in fear as a result of Defendant’s management. 15. Ms. Guzman objected to, opposed and complained about the sexual harassment. 16. Ms. Guzman was retaliated against as a direct result of her reporting and/or objecting
to the unlawful discrimination and harassment. 17. Ms. Guzman engaged in protected activity and/or conduct under the anti-retaliation
provisions of Title VII. 18. Defendant did not take prompt or effective remedial action to stop and/or prevent the
harassment. 19. The unlawful discrimination and retaliation adversely affected the terms and
conditions of Ms. Guzman's employment, resulting in her suffering economic losses and adverse and tangible employment actions and unfavorable consequences to her job and job status. 20. Ms. Guzman was subjected to mental anguish, pain and suffering as a result of the harassment and retaliation. She suffered greatly emotionally and personally. 21. Ms. Guzman suffered a loss of benefits and wages as a result of the harassment and retaliation. 22. Ms. Guzman was greatly damaged by the unlawful discrimination and retaliation. Further, the damage to Ms. Guzman was compounded by Defendant’s actions in retaliating against her, including terminating her.
3

23. Defendant articulated pretextual reasons for the termination and retaliation. 24. Ms. Guzman has suffered lost wages and benefits and a loss of future earnings as a
direct result of the unlawful discrimination and retaliation. 25. Ms. Guzman suffered emotional injuries from the discrimination and retaliation. She
was subjected to worry, anxiety, humiliation, loss of self-esteem, humiliation and embarrassment. 26. Ms. Guzman seeks to be made whole for the losses and damages she has suffered. 27. Defendant acted with absolute malice towards Ms. Guzman and in intentional and reckless disregard for her civil rights. Defendant was evil in its motives in discriminating and retaliating against Ms. Guzman. Defendant knew fully that it was violating the law, but nevertheless continued and escalated its unlawful conduct against Ms. Guzman, and ultimately firing her. Its actions were willful. 28. Defendant would not have terminated or retaliated against Ms. Guzman but for her gender and the protected activity and/or conduct by Ms. Guzman.
VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW COUNT I – UNLAWFUL GENDER DISCRIMINATION 29. All of the allegations of this Complaint are incorporated fully in this Count. 30. Defendant discriminated against Ms. Guzman on the basis of her gender by creating a
hostile environment, sexually harassing her and subjecting her to different treatment than males. 31. Defendant’s actions violated Title VII. 32. Ms. Guzman suffered adverse tangible employment action by the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, and she was damaged as a result.
4

33. The unlawful discrimination adversely affected the terms and conditions of Ms. Guzman’s employment, resulting in her suffering economic losses and adverse and tangible employment actions and unfavorable consequences to her job and job status.
34. Ms. Guzman seeks to recover her lost wages and benefits, lost future earnings, compensatory damages and punitive damages from the Defendant. Ms. Guzman also seeks reinstatement and an award of attorney fees and costs and pre- and postjudgment interest.
35. Defendant should be ordered to make Ms. Guzman whole by providing compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, anxiety, depression, embarrassment, degradation, and humiliation.
36. Punitive damages should also be assessed against the Defendant. COUNT II – UNLAWFUL RETALIATION 37. All of the allegations of this Complaint are incorporated fully in this Count. 38. Ms. Guzman was terminated from employment in retaliation for engaging in
protected activity and opposition concerning gender discrimination. 39. Ms. Guzman suffered other employment harm and damage as a result of the unlawful
retaliation, as outlined above. 40. Defendant’s actions violated Title VII. 41. The unlawful retaliation adversely affected the terms and conditions of Ms. Guzman’s
employment, resulting in her suffering economic losses and adverse and tangible employment actions and unfavorable consequences to her job and job status. 42. Ms. Guzman seeks to recover her lost wages and benefits, lost future earnings, compensatory damages and punitive damages from the Defendant. Ms. Guzman also
5

seeks reinstatement and an award of attorney fees and costs and pre- and post-
judgment interest.
43. Defendant should be ordered to make Ms. Guzman whole by providing compensation
for pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, anxiety,
depression, embarrassment, degradation, and humiliation.
44. Punitive damages should be assessed against Defendant.
Respectfully submitted,
___________/s/___________ Stephen B. Lebau (Bar # 07258) Richard P. Neuworth (Bar # 01052) Anna L. Jefferson (Bar # 25108) LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC 606 Baltimore Avenue – Suite 201 Baltimore, MD 21204 tel. 410.296.3030 fax. 410.296.8660
Attorneys for Plaintiff
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff-Intervenor respectfully requests that a jury of her peers decide her case.
_________/s/_____________ Stephen B. Lebau Richard P. Neuworth Anna Jefferson LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC 606 Baltimore Avenue – Suite 201 Baltimore, MD 21204 tel. 410.296.3030 fax. 410.296.8660
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6

 
 Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 32-2 Filed 08/11/2005 Page 1 of 4

J
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT *

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

*
Plaintiff,

* v.

*
WORTHINGTON, MOORE AND

JACOBS, INC.,

*

Defendant.

*

* * * * * * *

CIVIL ACTION NO. L-04-CV-3127
* * * *

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Upon consideration of the parties' Joint Motion for Protective Order, and for good cause shown, it is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 26(c), F.R.Civ.P., that the personnel and payroll records of employees not identified by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as "class members" and documents containing regarding Defendant's clients, commissions, compensation structure, and finances disclosed by or on behalf of Defendant Worthington, Moore & Jacobs ("Defendant") through discovery in this matter, hereafter referenced as "the protected information," shall be produced under the following conditions: 1. Subject to the exception noted in Paragraph 2 below, no Plaintiff shall disclose any of the protected information to any individual other than such attorneys, employees and expert witnesses of the Plaintiff as may be reasonably necessary to prosecute this suit. The parties, their attorneys and the attorneys' staffs shall take all necessary measures to prevent

-1-

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 32-2 Filed 08/11/2005 Page 2 of 4
disclosure of the protected information to outside parties. In the case of disclosure to expert witnesses, Plaintiff will provide a copy of this Order to the witness and will advise the witness, in writing, ofhislher obligation to comply with this protective order.
2. Should any of the Plaintiffs believe that it is necessary for purposes of preparation for the trial in this matter to disclose any protected information to any person (hereinafter "any person") not specifically listed in Paragraph 1, that Plaintiff shall:
(a) Inform Defendant's counsel in writing of the documents it proposes to disclose and to whom before disclosing any documents; (b) Defendant's counsel will inform Plaintiff's counsel whether Defendant consents to the proposed disclosure; (c) If Defendant does not consent to disclosure, Defendant will immediately seek a protective order to prevent disclosure. Said protective order must be filed with the Court within five business days of receipt of the written notice under paragraph 2(a) above. If said protective order is not filed within this time frame, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to proceed using the aforementioned documents. Plaintiff shall not disclose any document(s) while the motion for protective order is pending. 3. Any person, including witnesses, to whom any document(s) are disclosed shall not disclose any of the document(s) or discuss their contents, including their existence, with any person other than the parties to this action or their counsel. 4. Plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this Order to any person to whom documents may be disclosed and will advise this person, in writing, of hislher obligation to comply with
-2-

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 32-2 Filed 08/11/2005 Page 3 of 4

Paragraph 3 above. Plaintiffs shall retain all copies of the documents disclosed and will not

permit any witness to make or retain copies.

5. Plaintiffs and their counsel shall make only such copies of the protected

information as are necessary for use in this course of this matter. At the conclusion of this

matter, Plaintiffs agree to destroy the protected information.

6. Any party intending to file with the Court protected information, including all

pleadings, deposition transcripts, exhibits, discovery responses or memoranda purporting to

reproduce or summarize confidential information shall label such information

"CONFIDENTIAL-SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" and shall simultaneously file it with

a motion to seal in accordance with Local Rule 104.13(c). In accordance with Local Rule

105.11, the confidential material shall be held under temporary seal until the Court makes a

ruling on the motion to seal. If the Court determines that the pleading, deposition transcript,

exhibit, discovery response or memorandum should be filed under seal, it shall remain under seal

until either the Clerk destroys the sealed materials or returns it to counsel, at the end of the

litigation.

7. The parties agree to submit this Stipulated Protective Order for entry to the Court,

and once executed by the parties, to be bound by the terms prior and subsequent to entry by the

Court.

AGREED AND CONSENTED BY:

For Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

For Defendant Worthington, Moore & Jacobs, Inc.:

lsi per e-mail authorization Maria Morocco

_/s/_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Jeanne M. Phelan

-3-

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 32-2 Filed 08/11/2005 Page 4 of 4

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21201
For Intervenor Laura Thomas:

Whiteford Taylor Preston, LLP Seven Saint Paul Street, Suite 1300 Baltimore, Maryland 21202

/s/ per e-mail authorization Jennifer 1. Klar ReIman & Associates, PLLC 1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036
For Intervenor Nancy Guzman:

/s/ per e-mail authorization _ _ __ Stephen B. Lebau Lebau & Neuworth, LLC 606 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 201 Baltimore, Maryland 21204

e.' *

*

*

*

*

* S* 7 E;*4« 8 Efl*- *

*

7771- IT IS SO ORDERED, this

day of-+rogasl, 2005.

~~~~ Chief Judge, United States District Court

-4-

 
 BENSON EVERETT LEGG Chief Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

101 West Lombard Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-962-0723

November 22, 2005

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL RE: Dear Counsel:

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al. v. Worthington, Moore, & Jacobs, Inc., Civil No. L-04-3127

I held a hearing today to resolve pending motions and to approve a new scheduling order. Counsel for the EEOC, Ms. Turner, Ms. Guzman, and Worthington Moore & Jacobs were present. On those motions, the Court orders as follows:

i) The joint motion to extend the scheduling order (Docket No. 41) is GRANTED. The discovery deadline is now January 9, 2006. On that date, counsel shall submit a status report, confirming that discovery has ended and suggesting a briefing schedule for dispositive motions. Additionally, counsel are permitted 40 deposition hours.

ii) Ms. Guzman’s motion to amend the complaint (Docket No. 39) is GRANTED. On or before November 28th, Ms. Guzman is required to produce any documents in her possession related to or supporting her COBRA claim.

iii) The motion to disqualify (Docket No. 42) is DENIED.

iv) The motion to compel an answer to the EEOC’s interrogatory #3 (Docket No. 38) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
a.. Harassment Claims Defense counsel shall provide a list that identifies (separately) past and present employees. Plaintiffs’ counsel may interview former employees, excluding Mark Muffoletto, but they cannot elicit information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defense counsel should also identify which current employees are part of management and must be deposed rather than interviewed. If plaintiffs’ counsel believe this list to be too broad in scope and cannot resolve the issue with opposing counsel, they may ask the Court to review the list. This Court is not requiring any employee, whether past or present, to submit to an interview. Defense counsel has ten (10) days from the date of this order to provide the required lists.

b. Retaliation Claims Plaintiffs’ counsel must identify the specific acts of retaliation within ten (10) days of the date of this order. Defense counsel will then have ten (10) days to respond with an answer to interrogatory that addresses each claim, identifies any documents

1

concerning the incidents, and identifies potential witnesses who know about the incidents.
v) The motion to compel deposition testimony (Docket No. 46) is GRANTED. The e-mail messages at issue are not covered by the attorney-client privilege, and Mr. Caprario must respond to questions about them. Defense counsel has leave to subpoena the relevant computer for data recovery.
Despite the informal nature of this memorandum, it shall constitute and Order of the Court and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly.

c: Court file

Very truly yours, /s/
Benson Everett Legg

2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES EQUAL

:

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION, et al.

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

WORTHINGTON, MOORE &

:

JACOBS, INC.

:

Defendant.

:

CIVIL NO. L-04-3127

MEMORANDUM

Now pending in this Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation suit is defendant

Worthington, Moore, & Jacobs, Inc.’s (“WMJ”) motion for partial summary judgment.

For the reasons stated herein, the Court will, by separate Order filed this date, GRANT

the motion in part and DENY it in part.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”) filed a Complaint on behalf of Jill Hennen, Elizabeth Ford, Melanie Sandy,

Lynne Geers, Diana Bantom, Laura Thomas, Nancy Guzman, and other unnamed female

employees of WMJ. The Complaint alleges that WMJ violated Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., by engaging in quid pro quo sexual

harassment, hostile work environment sexual harassment, and retaliation. Thomas and

Guzman have retained their own attorneys and intervened in the action. This means that

they are prosecuting their own action, independent of the EEOC. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.

All seven women were formerly employed by WMJ, a commercial debt-

collection firm with offices in Ellicott City, Maryland and Dover, Delaware. Ford,

1

Bantom, and Sandy were administrative assistants. Hennen was a debt collector and then

a client services representative, Thomas was a sales representative, Geers was Director of Client Services, and Guzman was the Manager of Administration.1 The dates of their

employment were as follows:

Hennen:

Ford:

Sandy:

Bantom

:

Geers:

Thom

as:

Guz

man:

December 1999-December 2000 July 1998-March 2001 March 2000-March 2001 August 2000-January 2001 July 1998-June 2002 April 2002-May 2003 July 2002-November 2003

During the relevant times, Sam Muffoletto was the president of the company and David

Caprario was the CEO.

Generally speaking, the complaints of sexual harassment center on Sam

Muffoletto. The women offer a common litany of complaints: that Muffoletto touched

them inappropriately, propositioned them, asked to share hotel rooms with them on

business trips, and repeatedly made inappropriate sexual comments. They allege that the

company not only turned a deaf ear to their complaints but retaliated by taking a variety

of adverse employment actions against them, including retaliatory harassment,

termination, and constructive discharge. In one case, the company’s attorney threatened

to sue the woman for defamation after she complained.

Because of the number of claimants, discovery stretched out until January 13,

2006. Thereafter, WMJ filed this motion for partial summary judgment. WMJ seeks

summary judgment on the following:

1

Geers, Hennen, Bantom worked out of the Dover office. Sandy, Thomas, and Guzman worked in

the Ellicott City office. Ford worked in both offices.

2

(i)

all claims filed on behalf of Hennen, Ford, Sandy, Geers, and

Bantom, on the grounds that they are barred by the doctrine of

laches,

(ii)

the retaliation claims of Thomas,

(iii)

the retaliation claims of Guzman,

(iv)

the retaliation claims of Hennen, Ford, Sandy, Geers, and Bantom,

and

(v)

the quid pro quo sexual harassment claims of Hennen, Ford,

Sandy, Bantom, Thomas and Guzman.

The Court will, by separate Order,

(i)

DENY the motion for summary judgment based on the laches

defense, without prejudice to refiling. If WMJ elects to refile,

further discovery and briefing may be required,

(ii)

GRANT the motion for summary judgment with respect to

Thomas’s claims of a retaliatory pay cut and retaliatory

constructive discharge, but DENY the motion with respect to

Thomas’s other retaliation claims,

(iii)

DENY the motion for summary judgment on Guzman’s retaliation

claims,

(iv)

DENY the motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claims

of Hennen, Ford, Sandy, Geers, and Bantom because WMJ, by

providing only perfunctory briefing, effectively abandoned this

motion, and

(v)

DENY the motion for summary judgment on the quid pro quo

sexual harassment claims of Hennen, Ford, Sandy, Bantom,

Thomas, and Guzman because WMJ, by failing to brief this motion at all, effectively abandoned it.2

2

It is not clear whether WMJ intended to move for summary judgment on the quid pro quo sexual

harassment claims. In the introductory paragraphs of its partial motion for summary judgment, WMJ

claimed to be moving for summary judgment on these claims. Nowhere in the brief, however, did WMJ

provide arguments to support the motion. Accordingly, the Court will DENY the motion without further

discussion.

3

The Court will hold a hearing to (i) discuss whether WMJ wishes to pursue the

laches issue, and, if so, to set a discovery and briefing schedule, and (ii) schedule a trial

on the surviving claims.

II. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court may grant summary judgment when "the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 322-23 (1986); see also Felty v. Graves-Humphreys Co., 818 F.2d 1126, 1128 (4th

Cir. 1987) (recognizing that trial judges have "an affirmative obligation" to prevent

factually unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial). Nevertheless, in

determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the Court views the facts,

and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the

non-moving party. Pulliam Inv. Co. v. Cameo Properties, 810 F.2d 1282, 1286 (4th Cir.

1987).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Doctrine of Laches

1.

Background

The time lag between the employment of Hennen, Ford, Sandy, Bantom, and

Geers and the institution of this lawsuit has generated a laches defense. Hennen, Ford,

and Sandy all filed charges with the EEOC in early 2001. On March 27, 2002, the EEOC

4

made “no cause” determinations3 and issued “right to sue notices” informing them that they had 90 days to file a civil action. They did not file.
On May 20, 2003 and January 14, 2004, respectively, Thomas and Guzman filed charges with the EEOC. Noting the similarities to Hennen, Ford, and Sandy’s claims, the EEOC reopened those charges on April 13, 2004. In the course of its investigation, the EEOC discovered that Bantom and Geers also claimed to have experienced sexual harassment and retaliation at WMJ. Bantom and Geers had never filed charges with the EEOC. The EEOC brought this lawsuit on behalf of all seven women on September 30, 2004.
2. Analytical Framework WMJ argues that the EEOC’s claims on behalf of Hennen, Ford, Sandy, Bantom, and Geers are barred by the doctrine of laches. In order to address this argument, it is important to understand how statutes of limitations work in Title VII cases. Private litigants must follow a strict timetable in order to bring suit under Title VII. First, they must file a charge with the EEOC within either 180 or 300 days of experiencing a Title VII violation. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). The EEOC investigates the charge and issues either a “reasonable cause” or “no cause” determination and a right-tosue notice. The employee then has 90 days to file suit in court. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)(1). If he does not file within 90 days, his suit is time barred. As mentioned, Hennen, Ford, and Sandy all filed timely charges with the EEOC. The EEOC issued each woman a “no cause” determination and a right-to-sue notice. None of the women filed a civil lawsuit, thereby forfeiting their right to bring suit on

3

The EEOC issues a finding of no cause when it “completes its investigation and finds that there is

not reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred.” 29 C.F.R.

§ 1601.19(a).

5

their own behalf. Bantom and Geers never filed EEOC charges, and their time for doing so expired in 2001 and 2003, respectively. Accordingly, they too are barred from bringing a civil suit on their own behalf.
The parties acknowledge that a different set of rules applies to cases brought by the EEOC. They disagree, however, as to the formulation of the rules and how they apply to this case. The parties’ briefing on these issues is difficult to follow and centers primarily on whether or not the EEOC can use the continuing violation theory to sweep in the claims of the five women. Cutting the Gordian Knot, the Court concludes that the applicable framework is as follows.
The EEOC can bring suit on behalf of anyone who has filed a timely charge of discrimination (a “charging party”). It can also use the charge as a “jurisdictional springboard”4 to bring suit for other violations. See General Telephone Co. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 329, 332 (1980). “Any violations that the EEOC ascertains in the course of a reasonable investigation of the charging party’s complaint are actionable.” Id.
There is no statute of limitations on actions filed by the EEOC. See Occidental Life Insurance Co. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355 (1977) (holding that neither § 2000e-5(f) nor state limitations periods apply to actions by the EEOC). If, however, a defendant is prejudiced by the EEOC’s unexcused delay in bringing suit, a court may fashion relief under the doctrine of laches. See id.5 To establish the equitable defense of laches, the defendant must prove “(1) lack of diligence by the party against whom the defense is

4

EEOC v. General Elec. Co., 532 F.2d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1976) (quoting EEOC v. Huttig Sash &

Door Co., 511 F.2d 453, 455 (5th Cir. 1975)).

5

Defendants may assert this defense against the EEOC. See EEOC v. Navy Federal Credit Union,

424 F.3d 397, 409 (4th Cir. 2005); EEOC v. Peterson, Howell & Heather, Inc., 702 F.Supp. 1213 (D. Md.

1989).

6

asserted, and (2) prejudice to the party asserting the defense.” White v. Daniel, 909 F.2d 99, 102 (4th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3. Hennen, Ford, and Sandy Claims The Court must address two primary issues to determine whether the Hennen, Ford, and Sandy claims are properly before this Court. First, whether the EEOC has the authority to bring the claims, either because the three women are “charging parties,” or, alternatively, because their claims were “ascertained” during a “reasonable” investigation of the Thomas and Guzman charges. Second, assuming the EEOC does have the authority to bring the claims, whether they barred by the doctrine of laches. The EEOC first claims that the Hennen, Ford, and Sandy allegations are properly part of this action because each woman is a “charging party.” WMJ does not dispute that Hennen, Ford, and Sandy filed timely charges with the EEOC. Instead, it argues that the three women are not “charging parties” for the purposes of this lawsuit because the EEOC closed their charges and did not have the authority to reopen them more than two years later. The EEOC reopened the charges pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1601.19(b), which permits it to reconsider a “no cause” finding and issue a “notice of intent to reconsider.” Section 1601.19(b) does not place a time limit on an EEOC decision to reconsider a no cause determination. Courts, however, have routinely held that agencies must reconsider decisions within a “reasonable time period.” See, e.g., Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Foundation v. U.S. Postal Service, 946 F.2d 189, 193-94 (2d Cir. 1991). This rule balances the “desirability of finality against the general public interest in attaining the
7

correct result in administrative cases.” Id. (citing Civil Aeronautics Bd. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 367 U.S. 316 (1961)).
In the instant case, the EEOC waited more than two years to reopen the three charges. By that time, WMJ had a reasonable expectation that the matter was closed. Accordingly, the Court finds that the EEOC exceeded its authority when it reopened the charges.
This finding is not fatal to the three claims, however, if they were “ascertained” in the course of the Thomas/Guzman investigation. Neither side has stated the legal test for determining when a claim was ascertained in the course of a reasonable EEOC investigation. The Court’s non-exhaustive research has not uncovered a test. The Court cannot decide this issue without further briefing on (i) the appropriate test, and (ii) the application of the test to the facts of this case.
Assuming that the three claims were “reasonably ascertained” in the course of the Thomas/Guzman investigation, this Court must then decide whether WMJ has mounted an adequate laches defense. The first element of the defense cuts in favor of WMJ. This element “is satisfied where a plaintiff has unreasonably delayed in pursuing his claim.” White, 909 F.2d at 102. The EEOC knew about Hennen, Ford, and Sandy’s claims in 2001. It took a year to investigate and then issued a “no cause” determination. More than two years later, it conducted a new investigation that reached a different outcome. What the EEOC has not done is describe its first investigation and explain why it failed to
8

uncover the alleged violations during it.6 Accordingly, the first factor weighs in favor of WMJ.
WMJ has also made a preliminary showing as to the second factor, prejudice. Much of the alleged sexual harassment occurred when Sam Muffoletto was alone with the claimants. Mr. Muffoletto died shortly after this suit was filed. He is, therefore, unavailable to take the stand and tell his side of the story.
What remains unaddressed is whether the prejudice can be mitigated. The EEOC apparently investigated the Hennen, Ford, and Sandy claims, as did WMJ. Neither side has discussed whether they adequately investigated the facts, whether the facts are memorialized in a record, or whether portions of the record might be admissible at trial. If portions of the record are admissible, they could substitute for Muffoletto’s testimony, thereby mitigating any prejudice to WMJ.
Finally, the parties have not addressed whether any prejudice to WMJ could be mitigated by dismissing certain claims or restricting damages available to the plaintiff, as opposed to dismissing the case altogether. See EEOC v. Peterson, Howell & Heather, Inc., 702 F.Supp. 1213, 1220 (D. Md. 1989).
WMJ has not made a sufficient showing to establish the affirmative defense of laches. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment on this basis is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice. As stated, the Court will afford WMJ the opportunity to complete the record if it so chooses.
4. Bantom and Geers Claims

6

The EEOC appears to argue that the Thomas and Guzman claims bolster the claims of the first

three women. It is difficult to see why the EEOC needed Thomas and Guzman’s claims in order to make a

case on behalf of Hennen, Ford, and Sandy.

9

Many of the same problems attach to WMJ’s claim that Bantom and Geers’s claims are barred. Once again, the parties have not laid out a test for determining whether these claims were “ascertained” in the course of a “reasonable” investigation into the Thomas and Guzman claims. Neither party has adequately addressed three prongs of the laches analysis. Accordingly, the Court will DENY WMJ’s motion for summary judgment on Bantom and Geers’s claims without prejudice. As stated, the Court will afford WMJ the opportunity to complete the record if it so chooses.
B. Retaliation Claims At the summary judgment stage, a retaliation claim must be analyzed under the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The plaintiff must first establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case of retaliation. Beall v. Abbott Lab., 130 F.3d 614, 619 (4th Cir. 1997). To do this, the plaintiff must show that: (i) she engaged in a protected activity, (ii) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (iii) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. Id. In the context of a retaliation claim, an adverse employment action is an action that “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 2415 (2006) (quoting Rochon v. Gonzalez, 438 F.3d 1211, 1219 (D.C. Cir. 2006)) (internal quotations omitted).7 Normally, “petty slights, minor annoyances, and simple lack of good manners will not create such deterrence.” Id.

7

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Burlington, retaliatory harassment constituted an adverse

employment action if there was “evidence of conduct ‘severe or pervasive enough’ to create ‘an

environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive.’” Von Gunten v. Maryland, 243 F.3d

858, 869-70 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)). In Burlington,

10

Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142 (2000). If the defendant offers such a reason, the plaintiff is “afforded the opportunity to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext” for retaliation. Id.
1. Laura Thomas a. Background
Viewed in a light most favorable to Thomas, the history of her employment with WMJ is as follows. She began work there on April 17, 2002. As a sales representative, she was responsible for contacting and cultivating relationships with potential customers (“leads”). Her guaranteed monthly salary was $3,000, and she was eligible to earn commissions of 20 percent to the extent that the fees she generated exceeded $15,000. Sam Muffoletto, the company president, was her supervisor.
The parties agree that Thomas’s performance was satisfactory during the first two months of her employment. Her productivity then began to decline. In July 2002, Thomas began working from home. On September 3, 2002, 250 of Thomas’s leads were removed from her queue. In a letter dated December 31, 2002, Sam Muffoletto, who allegedly had been sexually harassing Thomas for months, wrote a her a memorandum
however, the Supreme Court articulated a broader standard for an adverse employment action in retaliation cases. See Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331 (3rd Cir. 2006) (recognizing that Burlington abrogates the Third Circuit’s earlier test for retaliatory harassment, which was similar to the Fourth Circuit’s Von Gunten test).
11

explaining that her pay would be reduced if her performance did not improve in January and February of 2003.8
On February 27, 2003, Thomas, through her attorney, Francine Weiss, wrote a letter to Caprario outlining the harassment she had allegedly suffered at the hands of Sam Muffoletto and demanding a settlement.9 In a letter to Weiss dated March 7, 2003, Mark Muffoletto, WMJ’s general counsel,10 denied Thomas’s allegations and threatened legal action against Thomas and/or her attorney for defamation. The letter also stated, “Given the fact that your letter has arrived almost simultaneously with the change in salary, it makes sense that Ms. Thomas is seeking a quick payday . . .”11 Around this time, Caprario took over as Thomas’s supervisor.12
On March 13, 2003, Mark Muffoletto addressed another letter to Weiss. He wrote, “It has not escaped us that [Thomas] is desperately trying to extort money for no other reason than to cover for her own non-performance and inabilities.” He again threatened to bring actions against Thomas, this time for slander and tortious interference with economic interests.13
On March 31, 2003, Caprario informed Thomas in writing that he was reducing her monthly guarantee to $1,500 and her fee goal to $6,000, effective April 1, 2003.14 On May 1, 2003 Caprario congratulated Thomas in an e-mail for surpassing her fee goal for

8

Thomas’s Resp., Ex. J (Docket No. 87).

9

Thomas’s Resp., Ex. K (Docket No. 87).

10

Mark Muffoletto is the son of Sam Muffoletto.

11

Thomas’s Resp., Ex. M (Docket No. 87).

12

Thomas’s Resp. at 12 (Docket No. 87).

13

Thomas’s Resp., Ex. S (Docket No. 87).

14

Thomas’s Resp., Ex. N (Docket No. 87).

12

April. Ten days later, however, he noted in an e-mail that her call volume was again declining.15
On May 15, 2003, Caprario announced to Thomas and others that a training seminar would be held on May 23, 2003.16 The next day, Thomas informed him that her daughter had a doctor’s appointment that day, but she would try to reschedule. During the next several hours, Thomas and Caprario engaged in an e-mail debate about the company’s leave policies. Finally, Thomas told Caprario she was resigning, effective July 11th. Caprario wrote back a few hours later, telling her that her resignation was effective immediately.
Thomas claims that WMJ retaliated against her for complaining about sexual harassment by: (i) cutting her monthly guarantee in half, (ii) subjecting her to retaliatory harassment, and (iii) constructively discharging and/or firing her. The Court will analyze the McDonnell Douglas test with respect to all three allegations.
b. Salary Cut i. Prima Facie Case
Thomas has established a prima facie case for a retaliatory reduction in pay. She engaged in a protected activity when she complained about sexual harassment on February 27, 2003. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). A pay cut is an adverse employment action.17 Finally, Mark Muffoletto informed Thomas that her pay was being cut only ten days after her February 27th complaint. Closeness in time between a protected activity

15

WMJ’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 14 (Docket No. 78).

16

WMJ’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 17 (Docket No. 78).

17

See Boone v. Goldin, 178 F.3d 253, 255 (4th Cir. 1999). WMJ claims that these changes did not

constitute a reduction in pay because Thomas could still earn the same amount of money if she maintained

her sales. Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision covers “employer actions that would have been materially

adverse to a reasonable employee.” Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 126 S.Ct. 2405,

2409 (2006). A reasonable employee could find a one-half reduction in guaranteed pay adverse.

13

and an adverse employment action is “sufficient to make a prima facie case of causality.” Tinsley v. First Union Nat. Bank, 155 F.3d 435, 443 (4th Cir. 1998) (internal citation omitted) (abrogated on other grounds). Accordingly, the burden shifts to WMJ to put forth a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for cutting Thomas’s monthly guarantee.
ii. Legitimate, Nonretaliatory Reason In its summary judgment motion, WMJ claims that it had long planned to cut Thomas’s monthly guarantee if her performance did not improve. It notes that her performance had steadily declined after the first two months of her employment. In December 2002, for example, she brought in only $3,972 in new business fees, which was only 26.48 percent of her goal of $15,000.18 On December 31, 2002, Sam Muffoletto wrote Thomas a letter, explaining that her guarantee of $3,000 per month would be cut if she did not meet her fee goals in January and February.19 Thomas did not come close to meeting her fee goals in January and February.20 In fact, her performance deteriorated further.21 As a result, WMJ, as promised, reduced Thomas’s monthly guarantee. Mark Muffoletto’s March 7th letter to Thomas’s attorney referred to the reduction, and on March 31st, Caprario wrote Thomas a letter explaining her new compensation structure.22 In sum, the evidence shows that company officials warned Thomas well before she complained of sexual harassment that her performance needed to improve in order to avoid a reduction in her monthly guarantee. WMJ has, therefore, put forth a legitimate,

18

WMJ’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Docket No. 78).

19

WMJ’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 4 (Docket No. 78).

20

She met only 19.59 percent of her fee goal in January and 21.07 percent of her fee goal in

February. WMJ’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Docket No. 78).

21

WMJ’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Docket No. 78).

22

WMJ’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., Ex. 7 (Docket No. 78).

14

non-retaliatory reason for the reduction. Accordingly, the burden shifts to Thomas to show that WMJ’s explanation is pretextual.
iii. Pretext Drawing all inferences in favor of Thomas, the Court must assess the record to determine if it fairly suggests that the proffered reasons for the pay cut are false. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 147-49. The Court finds that Thomas has failed to establish any genuine dispute of material fact that could lead a jury to conclude that WMJ’s stated reasons were pretextual. Thomas first claims that WMJ’s statistics about her performance are inaccurate. She has provided no evidence to support this contention, however. Moreover, she has not attempted to prove that she was performing up to expectations.23 Second, Thomas claims that WMJ did not reduce the guarantees of other employees who were underperforming. She is correct that other sales representatives performed poorly. WMJ’s sales statistics show that Anthony Nobilio and Al Townsend were performing well below expectations.24 Thomas is wrong, however, when she claims that they were not disciplined. Caprario testified at his deposition that WMJ cut Nobilio’s guarantee sometime in 2003. WMJ planned to cut Townsend’s guarantee as well, but fired him for poor attendance instead.25 Thomas has offered no competing evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on this issue. The record shows that Thomas consistently underperformed for months before she complained of sexual harassment. The company has demonstrated that it intended to cut her guarantee to a level more consistent with her production if her performance did

23

Thomas claims that if she was underperforming, it was because she was being sexually harassed.

24

EEOC’s Reply to Thomas & Guzman’s Resps. Ex. 50 (Docket No. 94).

25

EEOC’s Reply to Thomas & Guzman’s Resps. Ex. 51, 52 (Docket No. 94).

15

not improve. The plan pre-dated her complaints of discrimination. A jury verdict in favor of Thomas on her retaliatory pay cut claim would be based on speculation rather than evidence.26 Accordingly, the Court will GRANT WMJ’s motion for summary judgment on this claim.
c. Retaliatory Harassment Thomas’s second claim is that Caprario and others engaged in a campaign of harassment against her in the weeks and months after her February 27th complaint. The alleged harassment consisted of threats of legal action and termination, demeaning language, micromanagement by Caprario, and changes in workplace policies. As mentioned, Mark Muffoletto responded to Thomas’s complaints of sexual harassment by threatening to sue Thomas and/or Weiss for slandering Sam Muffoletto and the company.27 A reasonable jury could conclude that this threat was retaliatory and severe enough to “dissuade[] a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington Northern, 126 S.Ct. at 2409. Accordingly, Thomas’s retaliatory harassment claim will go forward to a jury. Evidence of the other allegedly retaliatory actions will be admissible at trial.28

26

Thomas points to a number of undisputed facts to support her claim that the pay cut was

retaliatory: (i) Sam Muffoletto, her alleged harasser, participated in the decision to cut her pay (Docket No.

87, Ex. B at 315), (ii) Mark Muffoletto mentioned the pay cut in his official response to her claims of

harassment, (iii) Caprario admitted that he “could have” referred to Thomas as a “bitch” after her complaint

Thomas’s Resp., Ex. B at 335 (Docket No. 87). These factors do not undercut the principle factors in the

case, namely Thomas’s deteriorating performance, the company’s pre-conceived plan to cut her pay if there

was no improvement, and Thomas’s continued poor performance.

27

Specifically, Mark Muffoletto threatened to sue Thomas and/or Weiss for slander because the

letter, which outlined Thomas’s charges against Sam Muffoletto, was not marked “personal and

confidential” and was, therefore, seen by the administrative personnel who opened it. Thomas’s Resp., Ex.

M (Docket No. 87).

28

The Court notes, however, that Thomas’s claim that Caprario’s foul language contributed to the

retaliatory harassment is weak. Although Mark Muffoletto testified that he heard Caprario refer to Thomas

as a “bitch,” “fucking bitch,” and “cunt,” Thomas has not pointed to any evidence that she heard Caprario

use these terms or that Caprario only began using them after she complained of sexual harassment. See

Thomas’s Resp., Ex. L at 177-78 (Docket No. 87).

16

d. Retaliatory Discharge Finally, Thomas claims she was constructively discharged and then terminated in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment. On May 16, 2003, Caprario declined to grant Thomas’s request for time off on May 23, 2003 to take her daughter to the doctor. Later that day, Thomas wrote an e-mail telling Caprario that her last day of work would be July 11, 2003, which was seven weeks in the future. She complained that she had suffered retaliation since accusing Sam Muffoletto of sexual harassment. She stated, “I will pursue every remedy to ensure that others will NOT be victimized.” Four hours later, Caprario wrote back, stating “Your last work day is today.”29
i. Retaliatory Constructive Discharge Constructive discharge occurs when an employer “deliberately makes an employee's working conditions intolerable and thereby forces [her resignation].” Holsey v. Armour & Co., 743 F.2d 199, 209 (4th Cir.1997) (internal citations omitted). The test for “intolerability” is an objective inquiry into whether a similarly situated reasonable person would have felt “compelled” to resign. Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 459 (4th Cir. 1994). Thomas has failed to show that her working conditions were “intolerable” at the time she resigned. Sam Muffoletto’s alleged sexual harassment had stopped months before,30 and he was no longer her supervisor. She worked at home, and therefore had little personal contact with other employees. Although Thomas had a number of run-ins with her new boss, Caprario, about company policies and her performance, “dissatisfaction with work assignments, a feeling of being unfairly criticized, or difficult

29

Thomas’s Resp., Ex. T (Docket No. 87).

30

Thomas’s journal detailing her harassment ends on January 31, 2003. Thomas’s Resp., Ex. H

(Docket No. 87).

17

or unpleasant working conditions are not so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign.” Id. at 459. Moreover, Thomas planned to stay at her job for seven weeks after she gave her resignation.
Thomas may have been unhappy in her job, but she has not shown that her working conditions were intolerable. Accordingly, her claim of constructive discharge fails as a matter of law.
ii. Retaliatory Termination Thomas also argues that Caprario’s announcement that her resignation would be effective immediately, not seven weeks in the future, constituted a retaliatory termination. This termination occurred fewer than three months after Thomas complained of sexual harassment and only four hours after she complained of retaliation and told Caprario she intended to seek redress. WMJ claims that Caprario dismissed Thomas because he was concerned about her having access to client databases while looking for a job with a competitor.31 WMJ has not, however, shown that it was standard practice to require employees to make their resignations effective immediately. Moreover, Caprario’s e-mail did not cite this rationale for requiring Thomas to leave immediately. Instead, it discussed Thomas’s poor performance, her “insubordination with respect to work standards” and “excessive time missed during regular work hours.”32 Caprario also noted Thomas’s “unfounded allegations made to [] colleagues,” and stated, “We take exception to your false

31

EEOC’s Reply to Thomas & Guzman’s Resps. at 17 (Docket No. 94).

32

Thomas’s Resp., Ex. T (Docket No. 87). In its briefs, WMJ also claims that Caprario learned from

another employee that Thomas told him she was thinking about leaving at 11 a.m. on May 23rd for the

beach. Caprario’s e-mail does not mention this incident, and WMJ has not pointed to any evidence

supporting this claim.

18

accusations and are prepared to defend your attempts to impugn our character to whatever extent is necessary.”33
Given the shifting rationales provided for Thomas’s termination and the references to her complaints, a reasonable jury could conclude that Thomas’s complaints about sexual harassment and retaliation were the impetus for her immediate termination. Accordingly, the Court finds that the reason for the termination is for the jury to decide.
2. Nancy Guzman Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Guzman, the history of Guzman’s employment is as follows. She was hired as Manager of Administration in July 2002. Her duties included preparing job descriptions, managing legal forwarding, and maintaining the company phone list.34 Her initial salary of $35,000 was increased to $40,000 after several months. In April or May of 2003, Guzman complained to Mike O’Connor, the Director of Operations, that Sam Muffoletto was sexually harassing her. Soon afterward, she was removed from her private office and she was no longer able to log on to the Fed Ex computer. She was shunned and given tedious work that she, as a manager, had never been required to perform before.35 In May of 2003, Guzman received an excellent performance evaluation from Sam Muffoletto.36 The next month, however, her responsibilities for supervising employees in the company’s Delaware office were removed.37

33

Thomas’s Resp., Ex. T (Docket No. 87).

34

EEOC’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 23, 24 (Docket No. 78).

35

Guzman’s Resp., Ex. 5 at 6-7 (Docket No. 85).

36

Guzman’s Resp., Ex. 3 at 35 (Docket No. 85).

37

EEOC’s Reply to Thomas & Guzman’s Resps., Ex. 49 (Docket No. 94).

19

In September 2003, Guzman was ordered to meet with the company’s attorney, Jeanne Phelan, who was representing WMJ in a sexual harassment matter.38 Guzman

initially told Phelan that she was afraid to speak for fear of being fired, but then admitted that the “allegations of sexual harassment were true.”39 About a week later, Guzman was

asked to meet with an EEOC investigator with Phelan present. Again, Guzman told the

investigator she was afraid to speak for fear of being fired.

After these conversations, Guzman was routinely excluded from important

meetings. O’Connor began to accuse her of failing to meet deadlines. Guzman’s new

office mate, Ron Marttila, began documenting her personal calls. Minnie Bailey, the

final employee under Guzman’s supervision, was transferred to the supervision of someone else.40 Finally, on November 10, 2003, Caprario called Guzman into his office and fired her.41

a.

Retaliation During Employment

Guzman claims that WMJ retaliated against her by removing her supervisory

functions, placing allegedly false e-mails in her personnel file, directing her not to

communicate with clients, monitoring her phone calls, removing equipment she needed

to do her work, requiring her to take on “tedious” tasks even though she was a manager, and excluding her from meetings.42

38

Phelan is representing WMJ in this case. She may be called upon to testify concerning the

interview. Neither side has addressed how this would be done and whether her status as a witness might

require her to withdraw as counsel.

39

Guzman’s Resp., Ex. 5 at 11 (Docket No. 85).

40

Guzman’s Resp., Ex. 5 at 7 (Docket No. 85).

41

Id. at 8. WMJ claims that Guzman resigned. At this stage of the litigation, however, the Court

must assume the facts in the light most favorable to Guzman.

42

Guzman argues that each of these actions was a discrete adverse employment action. The Court

need not address each allegation individually, because the Court finds that even if a jury does not consider

each action an adverse employment action, it could conclude that all of these actions, taken together,

constituted retaliatory harassment.

20

WMJ apparently does not dispute that Guzman’s three conversations with company officers and attorneys about sexual harassment constituted protected activities or that the actions Guzman alleges were retaliatory actually occurred in the aftermath of those conversations. Instead, WMJ contends first, that these actions were not adverse employment actions, and second, even if they were, WMJ had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for removing some of Guzman’s job duties.
The Court finds that a reasonable employee could be dissuaded from complaining of sexual harassment if she knew that her job responsibilities would be changed, her supervisory functions removed, and her actions monitored if she spoke up.43 Accordingly, a jury could conclude that Guzman established a prima facie case of retaliatory harassment.
WMJ claims that it had legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for its actions. It has not, however, attempted to offer any explanation for monitoring Guzman’s phone calls, removing the Federal Express computer, or requiring Guzman to perform tedious tasks.
WMJ also offers explanations for removing two of Guzman’s job duties. First, WMJ claims that Guzman’s supervisory duties in the Delaware office were removed because someone else was hired to perform them. WMJ makes no effort to explain why the hiring of someone else to take over Guzman’s duties was not a retaliatory act.44 Second, WMJ claims that Guzman’s legal duties diminished because there was less legal

43

In its brief, WMJ says it is attacking the causal connection between the protected activities and the

alleged retaliatory conduct. Because WMJ is offering alternate explanations for taking action against

Guzman, the Court will analyze this argument under the second prong of the three-prong McDonnell

Douglas standard.

44

EEOC’s Reply to Thomas & Guzman’s Resps. at 4 (Docket No. 94).

21

work to be done.45 This does not, however, address the complete removal of Guzman’s legal duties later in her employment.46

A jury could reasonably find that WMJ has failed to offer a legitimate, non-

retaliatory reason for the actions Guzman cites. Accordingly, Guzman’s retaliatory

harassment claim survives summary judgment.

b.

Retaliatory Discharge

Guzman next claims that after her two conversations with Phelan and the EEOC

investigator, WMJ executives began trying to manufacture reasons to fire her. WMJ

apparently concedes that Guzman has established a prima facie case of retaliatory

discharge. It claims that it is nonetheless entitled to summary judgment because it had three legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for firing her. 47

First, on October 20, 2003, Guzman tipped off another employee to Sam Muffoletto’s “surprise” visit to the Delaware office.48 She does not deny that she knew the visit was intended as a surprise.49 Instead, she argues that this explanation is a pretext

because what she did was not a fireable offense. Notably, one employee in the Delaware

office stated in an affidavit that it was “not unusual” for WMJ managers, including O’Connor and Caprario, to warn her in advance of the “surprise” visits.50

Second, Guzman revealed allegedly confidential information she learned at a

meeting in October 2003. At the meeting, management announced that Minnie Bailey

45

EEOC’s Reply to Thomas & Guzman’s Resps. at 4 (Docket No. 94).

46

EEOC’s Reply to Thomas & Guzman’s Resps. Ex. 49 at 55-57 (Docket No. 94).

47

WMJ also claims it is entitled to summary judgment because Guzman resigned. At this stage of

the litigation, the Court must assume she was fired.

48

Muffoletto apparently dropped in unannounced at the Delaware office to make sure everything

was running smoothly.

49

In her e-mail, she wrote, “Well, you didn’t hear it from me.” EEOC’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 27

(Docket No. 78).

50

Guzman’s Resp., Ex. 10 (Docket No. 85).

22

would no longer be reporting to Guzman. Attendees were told that they were not to discuss the meeting with other people, except that new supervisors could tell their supervisees about the new reporting relationship. Guzman admits she told Bailey that she was no longer her supervisor,51 but again, she claims that her actions did not constitute a fireable offence.
Finally, WMJ alleges that Guzman made inappropriate comments to another employee, Jennifer Seaman, on November 6, 2003. Seaman wrote a summary of the comments and gave it to management. In her statement, Seaman accused Guzman of the following: calling coworkers “backstabbers,” telling her that another employee said Seaman’s clothes were too tight, saying that O’Connor “whored out” his own sister, calling Caprario “cheap,” calling another employee an “asshole,” and commenting on the performance of other employees.52 Guzman acknowledges that she made some of these statements,53 but she testified that a culture of gossip pervaded WMJ.54 Moreover, she was never disciplined for talking about coworkers until after she met with Phelan and the EEOC.
Even viewing all three reasons together, the Court finds that there is a legitimate factual dispute as to whether the proffered reasons are pretextual. Guzman received an excellent evaluation the spring before she was terminated, and her performance continued to be satisfactory.55 She had no infractions in her work file prior to her meetings with

51

Guzman’s Resp., Ex. 5 at 8 (Docket No. 85).

52

EEOC’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 28 (Docket No. 78). Seaman neither gave a deposition or

provided a signed affidavit in this case. It is undisputed, however, that WMJ managers knew about

Seaman’s allegations when they fired Guzman.

53

Guzman’s Resp., Ex. 1 at 233-37 (Docket No. 85).

54

Guzman’s Resp., Ex. 1 at 169-70 (Docket No. 85).

55

WMJ acknowledges that there are factual disputes about whether Guzman’s performance was

satisfactory in the time leading up to her termination. EEOC’s Reply to Thomas & Guzman’s Resps. at 5

23

Phelan and the EEOC.56 These factors and the arguably minor nature of her infractions could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that WMJ’s explanations are pretextual.57
c. Retaliatory Interference with Employment Opportunities
Guzman’s final claim is that the retaliation continued after she was fired. In particular, she claims that she had several good job prospects that evaporated once the potential employers contacted WMJ. As Guzman noted in her response, WMJ made no mention of this claim in its motion for summary judgment.58 Only in its reply did WMJ explain that it thought Guzman had dropped this claim.59 The moving party may not raise new grounds for summary judgment in a reply brief. Accordingly, the Court will DENY summary judgment on this claim.
3. Hennen, Ford, Sandy, Bantom and Geers WMJ has also moved for summary judgment on the retaliation claims brought on behalf of Hennen, Ford, Sandy, Bantom and Geers. In its briefing, however, WMJ made only a perfunctory attempt to support the motion. Accordingly, the motion will be DENIED.

n.2 (Docket No. 94). At this stage of the litigation, the Court must view the facts in a light favorable to

Guzman.

56

Guzman’s Resp., Ex. 3 at 381 (Docket No. 85).

57

Guzman also claims that at least one other employee who committed much more serious

infractions was not fired. She cites to the depositions of Robert Muffoletto, Mark Muffoletto, and

O’Connor to support this claim. Although Robert Muffoletto acknowledged that this employee had sex in

the office, he stated that he did not know what, if any, disciplinary action was taken against the offender.

The Court cannot determine what Mark Muffoletto and O’Connor said about this employee because

Guzman failed to include the relevant pages of their depositions as exhibits. See Guzman’s Resp. at 39

n.24 (Docket No. 85).

58

Guzman’s Resp. at 39-40 (Docket No. 85).

59

EEOC’s Reply to Thomas & Guzman’s Resps. at 9-10 (Docket No. 94).

24

IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, the Court will, by separate Order filed this date,
GRANT in part and DENY in party WMJ’s motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 78). The Court will also SCHEDULE a hearing on April 19, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 7A to (i) discuss whether WMJ wishes to pursue the laches issue, and, if so, to set a discovery and briefing schedule, and (ii) schedule a trial on the surviving claims. A status report is due one week before the hearing.

Dated this 30th day of March, 2007.
Benson Chief

/s/ Everett Legg
Judge

25

 
 Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 187 Filed 08/05/09 Page 1 of 2

fWI ; · -'~l-:-. PF. fltc:·o

'"·

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COlJRt ; COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARY~AND

RYLAND

Jl.Ytfi ·J1·UG- 5 P Jttn

UNITED STATES, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil No. BEL-04-3127

WORTHINGTON, MOORE, & JACOBS, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER
For the reasons stated on the record on June 19, 2009, and as outlined in the Report and
Recommendation of July 1, 2009, the Court hereby ENTERS JUDGMENT against Defendant
Worthington, Moore, & Jacobs, Inc., and AWARDS the Claimants the following relief:
(i) Claimant Jill Hennen Iovacchini: back pay of$75,256.00; compensatory damages and punitive damages of $50,000.00; post-judgment interest from the date of final judgment;
(ii) Claimant Elizabeth Ford: back pay of $21,966.00; compensatory damages and punitive damages of $50,000; post-j udgment interest from the date of final judgment;
(iii) Claimant Diana Bantam: compensatory damages and punitive damages of $50,000.00; post-judgment interest from the date of final judgment;
(iv) Claimant Lynne Geers: back pay of$17,734.00; compensatory damages and punitive damages of $50,000.00; post-judgment interest from the date of final judgment;
(v) Claimant Melanie Sandy Goldsberry: back pay of $75,042.00; compensatory damages and punitive damages of $50,000.00; post-judgment interest from the date of final judgment;

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 187 Filed 08/05/09 Page 2 of 2
(vi) Claimant Laura Thomas: back pay of$114,737.00; compensatory damages and punitive damages of $50,000; post-judgment interest from the date of final judgment;
(vii) Claimant Nancy Guzman: back pay of$23,591.00; compensatory damages and punitive damages of$50,000.00; post-judgment interest from the date of final judgment.

It is so ORDERED this 3rd day of Au gust, 2009.

Benson Everett Leg Chief Judge

 
 Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 160 Filed 04/29/09 Page 1 of 2

IN THE.u.t:mFr.ILEmE~B£1U:!§bJ:STRICT COURT . i<, ffis'tltfc~~~YLAND

ZOO'

ANPRO2RqTHAERnN:

DTYISION ql

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORT~tlfE )

COMMISSION,

CkTE~~LTtHORE )

Plaintiff,

OEP~TY

)

v.

)

)

C.A. No. 04-03127-BEL

)

)

)

)

WORTHINGTON, MOORE & JACOBS, INC. )

)

Defendant.

)

Nul 031 ,I z:JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportnnity Commission ("EEOC"), Plaintiff-Intervenor
Laura Thomas, and Plaintiff-Intervenor Nancy Guzman have filed a Motion for Default
Judgment. A default having been entered on February 19, 2009, due to Defendant's abandonment of the pretrial process and the withdrawal of its counsel, and substitute counsel having failed to appear on behalf of Defendant, it is hereby
ORDERED that by virtue of Defendant's default, this Court accepts that the factual allegations contained in the Plaintiffs' Complaints (Docket Nos. 1, 8, 28), as supported by the declarations and deposition testimony in the record of this case, are sufficient to find Defendant liable on all existing claims alleged in the Complaints.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT is entered against Defendant on behalf of Plaintiff EEOC, Plaintiff-Intervenor Thomas and Plaintiff-Intervenor Guzman as to liability on all existing claims raised in the Complaints (Dockets Nos. 1, 8, 28). This Judgment

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 160 Filed 04/29/09 Page 2 of 2

constitutes a finding that Defendant violated Section 703 (a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000 e-

2(a), by discriminating against Diana Bantom, Elizabeth Ford, Melanie Goldsberry, Lynne Geers, Nancy Guzman, Jill Hennen, and Laura Thomas on the basis of gender by subjecting

them to sexual harassment. This Judgment further constitutes a finding that Defendant violated

Section 704 (a) of Title VII by retaliating against Elizabeth Ford, Jill Hennen, Melanie

Goldsberry, Laura Thomas, and Nancy Guzman for their complaints about sexual harassment by

subjecting them to retaliatory harassment and adverse employment actions, and by terminating

their employment or effectuating a constructive discharge by deliberately creating intolerable

working conditions.

Because the damages claimed are not for a sum certain, the Court has referred this case to

U.S. Magistrate Judge Pau: W. Grimm for the purpose of conducting proceedings to determine

any damages award to be made. · hin three days oft e entry of this order,

re est a pre-hearing~ conference "th Judge Grimm fo he purpose of estaB ·shing a

schedule

re-hearing Sl ~ns, and to se

· HEARING

BEEN SCHEDULE

yp~9
Dated: - - -

~s~ettLegg U.S. District Court Judge

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES EQUAL

:

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION, et al.

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

WORTHINGTON, MOORE &

:

JACOBS, INC.

:

Defendant.

:

CIVIL NO. L-04-3127

MEMORANDUM

This is a Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation suit brought by the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“the EEOC”), on behalf of seven former female

employees, and two Plaintiff-Intervenors, against defendant Worthington, Moore, &

Jacobs, Inc.’s (“WMJ”). On April 29, 2009 the Court entered a Default Judgment against

WMJ due to the withdrawal of its counsel and its failure to prosecute. See Docket No.

160. Consequently, Chief Magistrate Judge Grimm conducted an evidentiary hearing

with regard to the relief sought by the EEOC and Plaintiff-Intervenors Laura Thomas and

Nancy Guzman on June 18 and 19, 2009. See Docket Nos. 176 and 177. No

representative from WMJ attended the hearing. On July 1, 2009, Judge Grimm issued a

Report and Recommendation regarding the damages that should be awarded and the

Court’s findings of fact. Docket No. 179.

The Report and Recommendation provides that any objections must be filed

within ten days after a copy of the proposed findings and recommendations was served

on the party wishing to object. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2);

Local Rule 301.5.b.

1

By letter dated July 8, 2009, WMJ’s Chief Executive Officer, David Caprario, objected to the Court’s entry of judgment in this matter. Docket No. 181. In his letter, Mr. Caprario offers a second-hand account of a conversation between two former employees of WMJ, the content of which suggested that the sexual harassment claims of the EEOC claimants were fabricated. Based on this account, Mr. Caprario now asks for dismissal of the EEOC class claims against WMJ. On July 10, 2009, the EEOC moved to strike Mr. Caprario’s letter pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Docket No. 182.
The Court notes that Mr. Caprario’s objections are not cognizable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of this Court. As a preliminary matter, the Court may not consider Mr. Caprario’s letter because, pursuant Local Rule 101.1.a, a corporation may not represent itself through the auspices of its officers or directors. See Jones v. DaCosta, 930 F. Supp. 223, 224 (D. Md. 1996). Accordingly, the Court will not receive or consider Mr. Caprario’s objections. The EEOC’s Motion to Strike will be DENIED, therefore, as moot. Docket No. 182.
Even if the Court were to receive Mr. Caprario’s letter, his objections provide no grounds for disclaiming Judge Grimm’s carefully-reasoned Report and Recommendation. Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Wimmer v. Cook, 774 F.2d 68, 75 (4th Cir. 1985). The basis for Mr. Caprario’s objection to the entry of judgment against WMJ is the unsubstantiated, hearsay statement of a former employee. Mr. Caprario’s letter, however, does not alter Judge Grimm’s finding that throughout the relevant period, WMJ had “no effective
2

sexual harassment reporting mechanism.” Docket No. 179, Report and Recommendation p. 3. Moreover, the Report and Recommendation details in full several examples of WMJ’s “reckless indifference” to reports of sexual harassment, which supports Judge Grimm’s recommendation that punitive damages be awarded. Id. pp. 5-6. The findings of fact established during the hearing provide a comprehensive record of WMJ’s pattern of sexual harassment discrimination effectuated mainly through the actions of Mr. Sam Muffoletto and the indifference of Mr. Caprario as CEO. The hearing transcript provides a painstaking review of the factual underpinnings of the case traversing 37 pages. The Court finds, therefore, that Judge Grimm’s findings are reasonable and supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the Court will hereby ADOPT and APPROVE Judge Grimm’s Report and Recommendation. Docket No. 179. A separate Order follows.

Dated this 21st day of July, 2009.
Benson Chief

/s/ Everett Legg Judge

3

 
 Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 1 of 3

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

*

UNITED STATES

*

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

*

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al., *

Civil No. BEL-04-3127

*

Plaintiffs,

*

*

v.

*

*

WORTHINGTON, MOORE,

*

& JACOBS, INC.,

*

*

Defendant.

*

*************

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has brought this

action on behalf of seven fem ale former employees of the commercial debt collection company,

Worthington, Moore, & Jacobs (“WMJ”), and two of the former employees have intervened to file

their own claims for damages. The EEOC and individual intervenors are referred to collectively as

the “Claimants.” Chief Judge Legg issued a defualt judgment against the defendant, Paper Nos. 150

& 160, and referred this case to me for the purpose of holding a hearing regarding damages, and to

submit a report and recommendation regarding the damages that ought to be awarded. Paper No.

151. I issued a Letter Order dated April 15, 2009, Paper No. 156, setting forth how the hearing

would be conducted, and in it directed the Claim ants to serve W MJ with all s ubmissions filed

regarding the hearing, as well as provide W MJ with actual notice of the hearing date. Claimants

have filed with the court evidence of having complied with the order to serve WMJ. Paper No. 161.

The hearing was held on June 18-19, 2009. W MJ did not appear. During the hearing,

testimony was taken from each of the Claimants, and documentary evidence and legal memoranda

1

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 2 of 3
were received. At the conclusion of the hearing, I issued on the record m y findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are incorporated here in by reference and attached to this Report and Recommendation as Exhibit A. For the detailed reasons stated on the record on June 19, 2009, I recommend that, following the time in which to file objections to this Report and Recommendation,1 Chief Judge Legg issue a final judgment that awards the Claimants the following relief:
1. Claimant Jill Hennen Iovacchini: Back Pay2 of $75,256.00; Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages totaling $50,000.00; post-judgment interest from the date of final judgment;
2. Claimant Elizabeth Ford: Back Pay of$21,966.00; Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages totaling $50,000.00; post-judgment interest from the date of final judgment;
3. Claim ant Diana Bantom : Back Pay of $0.00 (none was sought on her behalf); Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages totaling $50,000.00; post-judgment interest from the date of final judgment;
4. Claimant Lynne Geers: Back Pay of $17,734.00; Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages totaling $50,000.00; post-judgment interest from the date of final judgment;
5. Claimant Melanie Sandy Goldsberry: Back Pay of $75, 042.00; Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages totaling $50,000.00; post-judgment interest from the date of final judgment;
6. Claimant Laura Thomas: Back Pay of $114,737.00; Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages totaling $50,000.00; post-judgment interest from the date of final judgment;
1Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within ten days after a copy of the proposed findings and recommendations is served on the party wishing to object. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Local Rule 301.5.b.
2The amount recommended for back pay for each of the Claimants includes pre-judgment interest, as requested by the Claimants and included in the damages calculations of their expert witness, Amy McCarthy, PhD, whose report was admitted into evidence. Paper No. 165.
2

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 3 of 3 7. Claimant Nancy Guzman: Back Pay of$23,591.00; Compensatory Damages and Punitive
damages totaling $50,000.00; post-judgment interest from the date of final judgment. In addition, it is recommended that the Court grant non-monetary relief pursuant to Section
706(g)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1) (2009), as stated in the proposed order submitted by the EEOC, and attached as Exhibit B hereto, and incorporated herein by reference.
Finally, once the court has entered a final judgment, counsel for the Claimants may, within 30 days, submit a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, if any. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve each party electronically, and in addition, serve Defendant WMJ by regular mail.
Respectfully Submitted, _______/S/_________ Paul W. Grimm
United States Magistrate Judge
3

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 1 of 37 1

1

(UNITED STATES EEOC V. WORTHINGTON,

2

MOORE & JACOBS, INC.; CASE NO. BEL-04-3127.

3

FINDINGS OF FACT BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRIMM,

4

JUNE 19, 2009)

5

6

THE COURT: Well, I want to thank you all for your

7

preparation and organization in this case, which made it possible

8

to do a good deal of work in a short period of time.

9

The first thing I want to do is to note that at the

10

EEOC's memorandum, which is Document Number 167, it contains a

11

discussion of the legal foundation for various components of

12

damages. The issue of liability here has previously been

13

established by virtue of the default entered by Chief Judge Legg.

14

So my findings, my conclusions of law include and

15

incorporate by reference the discussion beginning at Page 2 of

16

Paper, Document Number 167, that analyzes the back pay, the legal

17

support for back pay. In addition, it incorporates by reference

18

the legal foundation for compensatory damages under Section

19

1977(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and found at 42 United

20

States Code Section 1981(a)(b)(3).

21

And I find, as was established by the testimony of the

22

witnesses, that the number of employees for the relevant period

23

at Worthington, Moore & Jacobs was approximately 30, which

24

results in a maximum combined cap of, for compensatory and

25

punitive or exemplary damages, at $50,000 per claimant.

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 2 of 37 2

1

In addition, the conclusions of law I reach incorporate

2

the discussion on punitive damages at Pages 6 and 7 of Paper

3

Number 167, as well as the discussion at Pages 7 through 9 on

4

post-judgment interest and noneconomic relief.

5

Similarly, the helpful memorandum prepared by Ms.

6

Thomas' counsel, found at Document Number 169, contains a

7

significant analysis of the legal underpinnings for the various

8

types of damages that were sought. Specifically, beginning at

9

Page 11, there's a discussion of the elements of what is required

10

for punitive damages. Either malice or reckless indifference, of

11

course, will warrant the award of these types of damages. And

12

I'll have more to say about that in just a minute.

13

Now I'm going to move into my findings of fact. And

14

I'll say for the record that if any conclusion of law I stated is

15

actually a finding of fact or if any finding of fact is actually

16

a conclusion of law, then each is cross-designated by me.

17

Let me start with facts I find regarding Worthington,

18

Moore & Jacobs. The senior officers at Worthington, Moore &

19

Jacobs included Dave Caprario, who was the CEO. And his

20

deposition testimony at Page 25 establishes that he was one of

21

the founders of Worthington, Moore & Jacobs. He actually

22

obviously was there before Mr. Muffoletto, who I find achieved or

23

was brought in subsequently as the President.

24

And at Page 35 of his deposition, Mr. Caprario

25

established that the company was formed in April of 1995. And

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 3 of 37 3

1

Mr. Caprario was one of the original officers of the company.

2

Mr. Muffoletto, Page 64, came to Worthington, Moore & Jacobs in

3

September of 1999 and in the capacity of President of the

4

company. The significance of this, obviously, is great because

5

the two individuals mentioned throughout the testimony of the

6

claimants as the individuals who were either doing the harassing

7

or to whom they reported the harassment included the CEO of the

8

company, Mr. Caprario, and Mr. Muffoletto, who was the President.

9

In addition, I find from the exhibits that were

10

introduced and accepted into evidence that the sexual harassment

11

"policy", I use the word "policy" with quotes around it, that was

12

adopted by Worthington, Moore & Jacobs, first, did not come into

13

existence until May of 2001, as established by Exhibit One to the

14

documents filed for Ms. Thomas' submission. And most glaringly,

15

at Page Two, Mr. Sam Muffoletto and Dave Caprario were the two

16

individuals to whom one was to report.

17

This was no policy at all. If it was anything, it was

18

simply an insult to the employees of the organization and

19

communicated in writing what had previously been communicated by

20

indifference, which was that there was no policy in the company

21

regarding sexual harassment and the ability to report this in any

22

effective way by employees.

23

So I find that throughout the period that was relevant

24

here that the company had no effective sexual harassment

25

reporting mechanism and therefore it was a document on its face

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 4 of 37 4

1

that was ineffective.

2

Mr. Muffoletto's responsibilities as President, since

3

he was the one who was the most, the front line harasser, as

4

established by the Caprario deposition, Page 94, was that he was

5

primarily involved in sales management, which is particularly

6

important here because he was a supervisor for many of the

7

claimants who were involved in generation of sales, selling

8

commercial collection services to businesses.

9

He also advised the legal department. And I say with

10

some regret that Mr. Muffoletto, in addition to being the

11

President, was also an attorney. And so he had this profession,

12

as well as his business responsibilities.

13

His responsibilities were described at Page 95 as

14

including organization of the Client Service Department, which

15

would include the contacts between the clients and the Collection

16

Department. And he had direct managerial authority over

17

Worthington, Moore employees.

18

This is important because, as the testimony of the

19

claimants indicated, many of them reported to him directly, and

20

those that did not report to him directly could not disassociate

21

themselves from his contact when he approached them, such as Ms.

22

Bantom, who was a secretary and not involved in sales. And the

23

fact that he was the President and had disciplinary authority and

24

supervisory authority means that he was using his position as the

25

President of the company for purposes of the harassing activity

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 5 of 37 5

1

that was described.

2

At Page 97, Mr. Caprario acknowledged that Muffoletto

3

had the authority to discipline employees.

4

Beginning at Page 100 is the discussion where Mr.

5

Caprario was asked about whether he had ever heard of any

6

disturbing behavior by Mr. Muffoletto regarding sexual harassment

7

of female employees prior to the time he was brought in, which

8

was denied. When he was questioned, beginning at Page 260, about

9

what happened when he began to hear reports, which he didn't deny

10

hearing reports, of the harassing behavior that was described by

11

the claimants, he stated that he talked to several of the other

12

women in the organization, a Ms. Dubois, D-U-B-O-I-S, and Ms.

13

Horwath, H-O-R-W-A-T-H, and Ms. Payton, P-A-Y-T-O-N. He was asked

14

if he did anything else regarding the allegations. He said, no,

15

he didn't, because he knew there were enough inaccuracies that

16

the allegations were not believable.

17

It is clear from the testimony that was brought before

18

me that, given the frequency and the severity of the complaints

19

that were made to Mr. Caprario, that to conclude from having

20

talked to several women there is no evidence that they had any

21

basis of knowledge of what was or wasn't happening with regard to

22

Mr. Muffoletto's conduct, and then to conclude from that that

23

there were inaccuracies, was virtually no, constituted certainly

24

deliberate indifference by him and his company on his behalf to

25

the allegations against Mr. Muffoletto. And this constitutes the

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 6 of 37 6

1

reckless harm that would be justified to support a basis of

2

punitive damages.

3

In addition, the testimony, uninvited, from all of

4

witnesses was that when they reported activity of Mr. Muffoletto

5

to Mr. Caprario, that he would laugh or say, That's just Sam and

6

he doesn't mean anything by it, or otherwise be dismissive.

7

That, too, is the essence of indifference to the rights of the

8

plaintiffs.

9

Moreover, to have a policy that was put into effect,

10

written policy in 2001, which was well after the complaints had

11

first surfaced, that put Mr. Muffoletto as one of the people to

12

go to is a poster child for reckless indifference to the rights

13

of the claimants. And further, it would support, does support an

14

award of punitive damages.

15

I am struck, by having read his deposition, at the

16

conclusory nature of certain statements he made, such at 264,

17

where it was obvious that a lot of the complaints were

18

fabricated. There was absolutely no evidence of any reasonable

19

investigation or having done an inquiry that would have been a

20

sufficient basis to make a determination as to whether or not the

21

claims were legitimate or not.

22

And I also note that when trying to determine if there

23

was an indifference on behalf of the company towards the rights,

24

beginning at Page 266, Mr. Caprario testified that a Ms. Vogel,

25

who was an employee of Mark Muffoletto, who was one of

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 7 of 37 7

1

Muffoletto's sons who did work on behalf of the company, was an

2

employee of his, was his secretary, and that she was involved

3

with legal matters. As part of the record before me there are a

4

series of exhibits that were offered and have been accepted that

5

include e-mail communications between Mr. Caprario and Ms. Vogel.

6

And although Ms. Vogel is not a claimant here, one wonders -- the

7

relevance of these documents are such that they establish a

8

factual basis to support the conclusion that Mr. Caprario was

9

indifferent to the types of complaints that the complainants

10

brought to his attention because he himself behaved in exactly

11

the same type of behavior.

12

His e-mail to Ms. Vogel on August 7, 2002, where he

13

told her that if he she weren't married and he weren't married

14

they could go to the beach together, and advised her not to

15

forget her thong. The August 15th, 2002 e-mail where he stated

16

that he missed her and it's his birthday. The September 9th,

17

2002 e-mail where he said that she looked nice and he liked the

18

blouse and the color. There's a whole series of e-mails, one of

19

which, September 9th, Hey, if you got it, flaunt it, right?

20

Nothing wrong with that. Help make the world a better place to

21

live, a ha ha ha ha, thanks.

22

And then the one on September 9th to Ms. Vogel. That's

23

how you make all that tip money! Your hubby must trust you

24

immensely letting you leave the house like that.

25

September 11th e-mail. You have a way about you,

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 8 of 37 8

1

that's for sure.

2

And then September 11th, 2002, where he e-mails her, I

3

could not tell what you were wearing as you had a stack of papers

4

in front of you. I could not even make eye contact when you

5

talked to me. You're the kind that needs a couple of drinks to

6

loosen up a bit, I bet. And then other similar e-mails.

7

This, plus the complaints, plus the testimony of the

8

witnesses as to his reaction just creates a very strong factual

9

record to support the legal basis for punitive damages, that

10

there was an indifference to the important rights of the female

11

employees of this company to work in an environment free of the

12

type of harassment that was discussed here.

13

Additional noteworthy matters in the deposition include

14

Page 315, where it was acknowledged that Mr. Muffoletto, who was

15

one of the harassing officers of the company, participated in the

16

decision to change Laura Thomas' base pay. And the testimony at

17

316 that he had involvement in the decision to change Ms. Thomas'

18

pay scale, as well as the testimony beginning at Pages 327 and

19

328, where a number of the individuals who filed the EEOC

20

complaints had reported harassing conduct prior to the time that

21

Ms. Thomas was ever even hired.

22

Therefore, it's very clear that the company was on

23

notice that there were things that had to be, that should have

24

been addressed in a real fashion.

25

The testimony at Page 330 further supports the

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 9 of 37 9

1

indifference to the rights of the claimants. He read Ms. Thomas'

2

charges to the EEOC and he admitted that it struck him that they

3

were very similar to the ones previously made to Mr. Muffoletto.

4

It seemed it didn't have any impact whatsoever on Mr. Caprario, a

5

rather incurious man; that the fact that these women had all gone

6

before Thomas had gotten there and had told remarkably similar

7

tales, that that somehow would corroborate what her complaints

8

were. But that didn't, it didn't trigger any inquiry on his

9

part. So again, indifference to the rights.

10

The discussion of his so-called investigation into Ms.

11

Thomas's complaint, beginning at Page 334, again shows the

12

indifference, to include an admission on Page 335 that after Ms.

13

Thomas' complaint, that he didn't deny that he could have

14

referred to her as, quote-unquote, "that bitch." And when asked

15

if he had referred to her in language similar to, quote, "that

16

bitch", close quote, in front of Sam Muffoletto, he acknowledged

17

on Page 336, I could have, I'm not completely certain.

18

And when asked whether Mr. Muffoletto referred to Ms.

19

Thomas in similar language, he was evasive. The exact

20

terminology that he used, "I'm not, I'm not sure." And when

21

asked, Any other term, he says, Pig comes to mind. Pig, the

22

question is. Do you recall Sam referring to Laura as pig? Yes.

23

When asked by counsel if he could give a little more

24

explanation, his comment was, I don't know. A pig is a pig. I

25

don't know. I don't know a good example of where a pig is used.

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 10 of 37 10

1

That type of smug, cutesy response permits the

2

inference that is supported overwhelmingly by the facts of the

3

record, particularly including his own e-mails to Ms. Vogel.

4

That just supports the conclusion that Mr. Caprario was an

5

enabler, if not an actual participant, of the type of harassment

6

of Mr. Muffoletto.

7

And that factual basis is more than sufficient to

8

support the noneconomic relief that the EEOC seeks in this case

9

because even though the company may be in a questionable

10

financial position now, it continues to operate. And if there

11

continue to be female employees there, then they are no doubt in

12

an environment where the same type of behavior can occur. And

13

while I acknowledge that there has been testimony in these

14

proceedings that Mr. Sam Muffoletto has died, he had sons who

15

were affiliated with it. And the mere fact that Mr. Caprario

16

alone is there, and given the record of his attitude and his

17

failure to take reasonable steps, the noneconomic relief

18

requested by the EEOC is warranted in this case.

19

Finally, what I want to say about the indifference is

20

at Page 373 he was asked whether he thought Sam Muffoletto had

21

any issues.

22

Answer: Did Sam have any issues? I think everyone can

23

have some issues.

24

Question: Well, do you think he had a boundary issue

25

with respect to personal conduct against females?

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 11 of 37 11

1

Answer: I never witnessed any of it.

2

Oh, I understand that, but female employees -- well,

3

employees told you about it, correct?

4

Some employees, right.

5

Again, a notion of, if I didn't see it, it didn't

6

happen, coupled with no effective policy, coupled with putting

7

the harasser as the person to complain to, all of this supports

8

the basis for the indifference standard to support punitive

9

damages.

10

As for the actual malice damages, I will discuss that

11

when I go through the facts supporting each of the claimants'

12

claims. But suffice it to say that collectively and individually

13

the testimony of those individual claimants demonstrate that Sam

14

Muffoletto engaged in the type of conduct that was persistent,

15

intentional, malicious and predatory.

16

There are those who say that there's very little sex in

17

sexual harassment and a good deal of control and domination and

18

just simply an exercise of power. And that comes through in this

19

record in great detail.

20

So as for all of the complainants who had involvement

21

with Mr. Muffoletto, his behavior amply provides a factual basis

22

for the actual malice or the malicious component necessary for

23

punitive damages and thus justifies it for each of them, as I

24

will say in more detail when I go through the facts supporting

25

them.

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 12 of 37 12

1

At this time I'm going to provide Mr. Davis, our very

2

esteemed courtroom deputy, with the book containing Mr.

3

Caprario's deposition testimony. Let me continue with my factual

4

findings with regard to individual claimants.

5

Ms. Hennen, H-E-N-N-E-N, her last name today as a

6

result of her marital status is I-O-V-A-C-C-H-I-N-I, began

7

working for Worthington, Moore & Jacobs in December of 1999. And

8

she almost made it a year before she was fired in December of

9

2000. She was at the time separated. She had two children. And

10

she came to work. At the time Mr. Muffoletto was the President

11

and Mr. Caprario was the CEO.

12

She reported to Mr. Caprario and then she reported to

13

Mr. Muffoletto because she was a Client Services Rep. As the

14

deposition testimony of Caprario established, as I referred to a

15

moment ago, the responsibilities of Mr. Muffoletto included the

16

Client Services Department. And of course the testimony, the

17

deposition testimony by Mr. Sowers established that when Mr.

18

Muffoletto was inclined to, he could be quite a boon to a service

19

rep by helping them locate new business that would produce income

20

for Worthington, Moore & Jacobs, that would generate commissions.

21

As the testimony of the claimants establish as well,

22

when he was not so inclined to be of help, that it would have a

23

negative impact on their income, about which we will hear more in

24

just a moment.

25

Ms. Hennen, I will refer to by the name that was used

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 13 of 37 13

1

most often in the testimony and in the records, although

2

originally hired for the Delaware office, reported a number of

3

times a week to the Baltimore office. When she encountered Mr.

4

Muffoletto, he would ask her improper personal questions. He

5

flirted with her. The intensity increased over time. He would

6

also accompany his comments with touching.

7

She testified that he referred to her as his girl and

8

asked her to date him, said he could take care of her

9

financially, and frequently stood closer to her than was

10

comfortable for her, and attempted to touch her. He offered her

11

the money. She denied that she encouraged or condoned or

12

acquiesced in these actions of his by any part.

13

She did not tell Mr. Caprario because she was dealing

14

with the President of the company and she felt intimidated. And

15

given the factual record I have just summarized regarding the

16

appalling indifference of Mr. Caprario to the rights of the

17

claimants in this case and his own apparent engaging in those

18

with regard to Ms. Vogel, his secretary, who is not a claimant,

19

there was no failure. No reasonable employee could be expected

20

to have reported to Mr. Caprario, given his remarkable record of

21

indifference to their legitimate complaints.

22

She testified there was no sexual harassment policy

23

when she got there, and that's proven by the fact that it wasn't

24

until May, 2001, when the policy, such as it was, was put into

25

effect.

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 14 of 37 14

1

She testified about a number of instances, an instance

2

at a country club where Muffoletto asked her to stay in his home

3

and at dinner offered her money. When they were on business

4

trips, he said that they would have to share the same room and

5

said this in front of other employees, which caused her great

6

embarrassment. Told employees they were dating. Insisted on

7

having a room adjacent to her.

8

She testified that she is a single mom and felt

9

trapped, and that she was being taken advantage of by Mr.

10

Muffoletto.

11

When he visited the Dover office, he would come to her

12

office, continue with the touching, asking her for companionship,

13

saying that he could afford her. She testified as to how she

14

felt degraded and humiliated by that.

15

The conduct increased in October, 2000. He said he

16

wanted her to live with him. And he tried to trap her in a room

17

one time. And her reaction to this was it made her upset,

18

discouraged. She cried, she feared retaliation. In one instance

19

when she avoided his attentions, the next day he was angry and

20

abrupt and told her that she had blown it and could have had it

21

made.

22

Thereafter, her employment conditions changed for the

23

worse. He started removing clients from her, including one

24

referred to as EBI. And this had an adverse impact on her

25

income. And she was ultimately fired shortly before Christmas in

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 15 of 37 15

1

December of 2000.

2

She felt devastated. She had never had such type of

3

adverse consequences in her employment. She testified that even

4

today, that she's defensive. She has a difficult time relating

5

to male coworkers. Her self-esteem continues to be affected.

6

She was unemployed for six months. And when she became employed,

7

she did not immediately recapture the income that she had had.

8

Dr. McCarthy, whose report I had previously admitted

9

into evidence and found that the methods used were reliable and

10

that the factual basis was sufficient as required by Federal Rule

11

of Evidence 702, calculated the back pay for Ms. Hennen at

12

$75,256. And I find that to be the proper calculation for back

13

pay. That includes interest.

14

My award, recommended award would include post-judgment

15

interest as well. And that will be for all of the claimants, if

16

I fail to say it for any one individual claimant.

17

As for damages, compensatory damages, the record's

18

ample with respect to her to show that $50,000 alone would be

19

ample for punitive damages, as well as for compensatory damages.

20

Regrettably, because of the limited number of employees, the

21

single cap of $50,000 would be imposed.

22

But I do find that, for the reasons that I've explained

23

at some length already, that both the malice component of the

24

award from Mr. Sam Muffoletto, as well as the indifference to

25

known constitutional and other rights by Mr. Caprario, is of

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 16 of 37 16

1

course the action of the company itself by its highest officers

2

and therefore warrants this.

3

So it's $75,256, plus $50,000, plus post-judgment

4

interest.

5

Next we heard from Elizabeth Ford. She commenced her

6

work as an administrative assistant in the Dover office in July

7

of 1998. She had 15 prior years of experience. She was

8

separated then and ultimately divorced. She had a three-year-old

9

daughter and was a single mom.

10

Caprario was her boss but Muffoletto came on board a

11

year after she got there. And she was told that Mr. Muffoletto

12

was the President and also an attorney and had a large client

13

base. She was told that by Caprario.

14

Muffoletto's conduct towards her was of a nature

15

previously described by Ms. Hennen. Shortly after Muffoletto

16

arrived, they had worked late, trying to meet some sort of a

17

business deadline. He asked to take her out to dinner. At

18

dinner, he asked her if she would like to come to the Maryland

19

office, dangled a $60,000 salary before her, which to her as a

20

single mom sounded like a dream job.

21

After dinner, he pulled out his wallet, offered her a

22

hundred dollars to buy something for her child. She refused

23

initially, but he insisted. She took the hundred dollars, after

24

which he grabbed her and kissed her on the mouth. She ran from

25

the car, drove home, and was ill after she got home.

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 17 of 37 17

1

He continued with these types of comments, often

2

commented about the way she looked. She testified that she

3

complained to Mr. Caprario. I've already established what

4

insufficient response she got from him.

5

Caprario said she would be fired if she didn't move to

6

the Maryland office. So she felt helpless and she needed a job,

7

so she actually relocated from Delaware, came to Maryland. The

8

company helped set up an apartment for her.

9

She got there, the pay raise didn't materialize. So

10

the $60,000 was never paid. And Mr. Muffoletto worked with her

11

in close quarters. They had the top floor of a converted

12

residence. It was just herself, Mr. Muffoletto, and one of Mr.

13

Muffoletto's sons. So there she was, book-ended by those two.

14

And she described it as a nightmare.

15

The company had provided her the hotel and at one point

16

Mr. Muffoletto hinted that he might have a key to her apartment.

17

This caused her to put a chair in front of the door on the

18

inside. In the event that he had a key, it would prevent him

19

from coming in. She became irritable and exhausted and it had an

20

impact on her relationship with her daughter.

21

He would touch her, get close to her and touch her.

22

There was an incident in the supply closet where she was getting

23

supplies and the light got darker. And there he was, Mr.

24

Muffoletto. And he said to her, if I was 30 years younger, that

25

you would be mine, words to that effect.

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 18 of 37 18

1

She described the work experience there as horrific.

2

And he would say things her such as, I miss you, you don't love

3

me. He said her to stay at his home. As she described it, she

4

was physically upset, she testified, even today.

5

He would engage in misbehavior, not just simply when he

6

was with her, but when he was with other employees. At one point

7

he said to her, in front of another employee, that he wanted a

8

threesome. And when he did not get the type of attention in

9

return that he wanted, he directed his anger towards her.

10

At one point he asked her to be his date at the office

11

Christmas party, and then at some point confronted her angrily

12

and said, Is it ever going to happen? When she said no, he was

13

hostile thereafter. He took away her client book of business and

14

that prevented her from getting commissions.

15

At one point she encountered one of the other

16

claimants, Ms. Bantom, B-A-N-T-O-M, who was visibly upset and

17

crying, could not calm down. And Ms. Bantom related to her that

18

she had experienced the same type of conduct by Mr. Muffoletto in

19

a long meeting behind closed doors that had taken place. This

20

caused Ms. Ford to go to Mr. Caprario, because she was concerned

21

about what happened with Ms. Bantom. Mr. Caprario laughed at his

22

desk and didn't ask for any details. This made her upset

23

because, as she described it, Caprario just blew her off.

24

Very shortly thereafter, Bantom resigned. And Ms. Ford

25

received a phone call from Robert Muffoletto, one of the sons of

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 19 of 37 19

1

Sam Muffoletto, who she had worked with in Maryland, who told

2

her, Watch your back. At that point the handwriting was on the

3

wall. She got a job at a temporary agency and then she left.

4

She was not aware of any sexual harassment policy at

5

the company for the simple fact that there wasn't one.

6

The damages calculated for her by Dr. McCarthy were

7

$21,966 for back pay, which includes interest. I find that

8

that's the proper amount of damages for her. In addition, her

9

testimony amply would support a $50,000 punitive award as well as

10

a $50,000 compensatory damages award. However, because only one,

11

a cap of $50,000 is applied, the total amount for the combined

12

punitive and compensatories is $50,000.

13

Ms. Bantom testified. She is the only claimant for

14

whom no back pay award is sought for the simple fact that she had

15

a job that paid as much or better before she left. She was there

16

a very short time. She got there in August of 2000 as a

17

secretary. She was divorced.

18

Muffoletto approached her and asked her to meet with

19

him, asked her personal details about her life. She described it

20

as hitting on her. And each time Mr. Muffoletto would come to

21

the Dover, Delaware office where she worked, the same type of

22

behavior would continue.

23

He told her that she told him that he did not want to

24

have any, she did not want to have any relationship with him,

25

rejected his advances. He would touch her, put his hand on her

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 20 of 37 20

1

arm, her back. He would try to pull her down if she was sitting

2

next to him and tried to get up, would touch her whenever he

3

could. She said that made her feel like a piece of meat because

4

they had no other business relationship and no other

5

relationship.

6

She did not like the fact that he touched her that way

7

because as a 14-year-old girl she had been molested, and his

8

conduct reopened the memories of that abuse that she had

9

suffered.

10

When she heard that Sam Muffoletto was coming to the

11

Dover office, she would become sick to her stomach. She actually

12

called out sick. January of 2001 she resigned. She'd been there

13

six months. She couldn't stand it. At one point she had been

14

trapped in a conference room by Mr. Muffoletto and he would not

15

let her out. She was upset. She went to Ms. Ford. And I had

16

previously related my factual findings about what happened when

17

she went to Ms. Ford and what Ms. Ford did with Mr. Caprario,

18

which produced no appropriate response.

19

She, too, was not aware of any sexual harassment policy

20

because it didn't exist at the time.

21

There is no back pay award because she had a job before

22

she left. But certainly, the $50,000 punitive award would be

23

justified as to Mr. Muffoletto's active malicious action towards

24

her and Mr. Caprario's indifference to the situation involving

25

her when it was reported to him by Ford.

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 21 of 37 21

1

She's also entitled to $50,000 in pain and suffering,

2

compensatory damages. But because of the $50,000 total cap, the

3

combined amount of each is only $50,000.

4

Ms. Lynne Geers, G-E-E-R-S, testified she started

5

working in the Dover office in July of 1998. She was the

6

Director of Client Services. She had more than five years

7

experience in that.

8

She had $3,000 a month in base pay, plus commissions,

9

and she had commissions from a number of different sources. And

10

she, too, although of all the claimants she was the one who

11

appeared to be emotionally the most resilient, she would need all

12

that resilience to withstand Mr. Muffoletto's attentions, which

13

included him asking her if she was dating, telling her that he

14

was good at oral sex, and making comments about her breasts.

15

She complained to Caprario and explained exactly what

16

he had done. Caprario said, Don't worry about it, that's just

17

Sam, and as she described, blew her off. She was insulted by

18

that, as she had a right to be. And Muffoletto, of course, kept

19

it up, even when he was rebuffed. Ultimately, he demoted her to

20

a sales representative job. She had to make hundreds of cold

21

calls a day, rather than having the benefit of his support in her

22

sales job. Her pay, as you might imagine, took a nose dive.

23

And the comparator for her was Mr. Sowers, whose

24

deposition was offered into evidence and received. Mr. Sowers'

25

deposition is significant because he testified -- and Stephen, I

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 22 of 37 22

1

will give this to you in just a minute as well -- he testified

2

that in his deposition at Page 19 and 20, gave examples of how

3

Mr. Muffoletto had assisted him in getting a client, which was

4

described as ARINC, A-R-I-N-C, which stood for Aeronautical Radio

5

Incorporated.

6

ARINC became a client, Page 21. In addition, Mr.

7

Muffoletto helped him get the Shelba, S-H-E-L-B-A, Johnson

8

Trucking Company, Page 23, the Landstar Trucking Company, Page

9

25, a company by the name of MGM Trucking Company, Page 28, and a

10

company called Rowan Barker, Page 28.

11

Now, the consequence of being in Mr. Muffoletto's favor

12

was such that Mr. Sowers testified at Page 80 that in 2001 he

13

earned $69,878.35. The next year, 2000 -- that's Page 81, or,

14

excuse me, Page 80. At Page 82 he testified that in 2002 he

15

earned $106,500.19, significantly more than the income that was

16

earned by Ms. Geers, who had a similar position with him.

17

When Mr. Muffoletto continued to make advances towards

18

her and she continued to rebuff him, her accounts were taken and

19

given to Robert Muffoletto, Mr. Muffoletto's son, who had no

20

experience with clients. He continued to proposition her. And

21

when she would not acquiesce, he became angry and sarcastic

22

towards her.

23

She said he gave her no help. She described the

24

situation where she went to the newspaper trade show. He had

25

agreed to accompany her. She made reservations. She went up to

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 23 of 37 23

1

Upstate New York for it. When she got to the hotel, he wasn't

2

there. She called. He said that he couldn't get a room to come

3

up there but would come up there if he could share a room with

4

her. She said no. He didn't come. So she basically was present

5

at a marketing event with the newspaper trade show, where she had

6

no one to assist her in making contacts, which he had promised to

7

do.

8

This had a dramatic impact on her compensation. And

9

she testified that she had no, she felt from the behavior

10

humiliated, harassed, and was upset about the loss of income.

11

She left and testified she was unaware of any sexual

12

harassment policy in the company, for the simple fact that during

13

the time that she was there, there was not even a putative policy

14

in place.

15

Her back pay, including interest damages, were

16

calculated by Dr. McCarthy as $17,734. That's the amount I find

17

is appropriate. The conduct that she endured would also warrant

18

$50,000 punitive, more than amply made by the actual malice of

19

Sam Muffoletto and the indifference towards important rights of

20

the company through its CEO, Mr. Caprario.

21

So she would be entitled to a $50,000 compensatory

22

award as well as $50,000 for punitive. They're capped at 50 so

23

that's the amount that she's awarded or that I recommend that she

24

be awarded.

25

Next, we have Melanie Sandy, whose married name now is

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 24 of 37 24

1

Goldsberry, G-O-L-D-S-B-E-R-R-Y. She testified by remote video

2

hook-up. She came to work for Worthington, Moore & Jacobs in

3

March of 2000. She lasted a year. She was in the Maryland

4

office. At the time she was single, though she was engaged. She

5

already had a son who was two years old. Muffoletto was her

6

boss, and she was the secretary for him and for his son, Robert.

7

She endured similar harassment to the type described by

8

the other claimants. He would come up to her, Mr. Muffoletto,

9

and say that when they went on business trips that they would

10

have connecting rooms so that they could, quote, "play all

11

night", close quote.

12

During a Dover business trip that she had to endure

13

with Mr. Muffoletto, he asked the clerk if the rooms could be

14

adjoining and said that he was going to get her drunk so they

15

could play all night. She said, quite reasonably, that she was

16

embarrassed and uncomfortable by this.

17

The next morning she came to his room, he called, he

18

asked her to bring him coffee, and she did. There he was in his

19

boxer shorts, and tried to grab her. And she left tearfully,

20

called her husband. She said, with remarkable understatement,

21

that she did not feel comfortable around him, and told him that.

22

One time he backed her into a corner and asked her to

23

kiss him. He tried to run his hands up her body. He made

24

inappropriate comments to her about sex and said that he could

25

provide her with financial benefits. She rejected his advances.

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 25 of 37 25

1

At one point he said to her that, he had initiated a conversation

2

regarding oral sex and told her that "young girls gave head

3

good." That was a quote she gave.

4

He asked her if she wanted him. She felt humiliated

5

and cheap, like dirt, she said.

6

Robert Muffoletto, his son, was equally coarse and

7

crude towards her. And she was visibly upset when she testified

8

to this.

9

I will not, just simply because Robert Muffoletto's

10

conduct, while equally reprehensible with his father's, is not at

11

issue here so I won't inflict on Chief Judge Legg the

12

characterization of some of the crudities that Robert Muffoletto

13

directed towards her.

14

She complained to Caprario during the first year and

15

said that Mr. Muffoletto's comments made her uncomfortable. And

16

thereafter, Mr. Muffoletto came to her and said that if she ever

17

complained again, she'd be fired. So, obviously, Caprario must

18

have told Muffoletto.

19

Caprario told her that he would speak to Sam and then

20

laughed and sniggered, found it amusing.

21

She became pregnant while she was there and told them

22

she was pregnant. Mr. Muffoletto continued his harassment. He

23

said that now that she was pregnant, she could have sex with him

24

and everything would be safe. Robert Muffoletto told her that

25

her husband would think that the baby was a Muffoletto baby.

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 26 of 37 26

1

She was nervous and self-conscious. She purposely

2

dressed in as unattractive a fashion as she could. She was

3

stressed out. She was unable to gain weight that she needed to

4

gain during the pregnancy.

5

She ultimately confronted Sam Muffoletto, said that his

6

comments made her uncomfortable. She asked him to stop. And he

7

said, Is that it, and then she was dismissed. A few weeks later

8

she was, in fact, dismissed. She was fired in March of 2001.

9

She wasn't aware of any sexual harassment policy

10

because none existed.

11

She testified in detail with respect to her attempts to

12

mitigate. Exhibit Eight, which was accepted into evidence, as a

13

10 page list of the types of companies she tried to contact.

14

Over 90, or over 100. Excuse me. Ultimately, she opened up a

15

day care but it didn't make a profit. She still said she has

16

nightmares. She testified as to her faith and that her faith

17

teaches her to forgive. And she faults herself for the fact that

18

she is not able to forgive Mr. Caprario and Mr. Muffoletto.

19

I find that the $75,042 in back pay, including

20

interest, that was found by Dr. McCarthy, is the appropriate

21

amount. She would be entitled to much more than $50,000 for

22

punitives from Mr. Muffoletto's malicious conduct and Mr.

23

Caprario's indifference, and the company's indifference through

24

his position with the company towards her, and more than $50,000

25

in compensatory damages. Regrettably, however, the cap is

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 27 of 37 27

1

$50,000 and so that's the only amount that can be given as a

2

collective award.

3

Laura Thomas testified that she was at Worthington,

4

Moore & Jacobs from April, 2002, until May of 2003. Her current

5

salary was between 75 and $80,000. She had 15 years of selling

6

collection services and risk management. She moved to Maryland

7

with her daughter.

8

She had an encounter with Muffoletto where he offered

9

her a position during a dinner meeting, and when she accepted he

10

directed the conversation to their personal lives, asked if she

11

was married. He asked to come to her condominium to go over the

12

details of the employment contract, and she let him to do so.

13

There they had wine, discussed the contract, and she signed the

14

contract, at which point Mr. Muffoletto, Mr. Sam Muffoletto said,

15

Enough about business, what about us? She said that she rebuffed

16

him and said that she didn't want to have a personal relationship

17

with him, she wanted a business relationship, with which they

18

could both make a lot of money.

19

During the course of her involvement with him, the year

20

that she was there, he asked her to go with him on trips and

21

treated her as if she were his property. At one point he offered

22

his BMW to her, cash, said he would be a sugar daddy to her, and

23

said that sex would not have to be all of their relationship but

24

it certainly would have to be part of it.

25

At some point she was approached by a female employee,

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 28 of 37 28

1

Patricia Diden, D-I-D-E-N, who, through her conduct and her

2

behavior, seemed to be sympathetic. So Ms. Thomas went to lunch

3

with her and explained what had been going on with Mr.

4

Muffoletto, and was told by Ms. Diden that she, too, had had some

5

sort of interaction with Muffoletto. The next day Muffoletto

6

confronted her. He was angry. He said that Diden lied about

7

having had a relationship with Mr. Muffoletto, threatened her

8

with firing, and demanded that she write him a note that she was

9

not planning on suing the company, which she did.

10

She testified that she feared him, and she feared that

11

he would deprive her of the means of supporting her child. The

12

conduct continued. And he continued to ask if she would go away

13

with him, commented about her, what she wore and how she looked,

14

and that made her feel like dirt.

15

She testified that she was worried and anxious about

16

her job, she couldn't sleep, she was fearful about finances.

17

After she continued to rebuff Mr. Muffoletto, she was

18

prevented from attending various client visits. There was a

19

company by the name of Infinity that she said she was not

20

permitted to go, and Viotech. V-I-O-T-E-C-H is my phonetic

21

spelling of what I heard her say. He refused to let her go along

22

on those business trips.

23

Her performance was affected by this. She said that

24

her self-esteem was diminished and things got worse. Her

25

testimony was that she believed that she would have continued to

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 29 of 37 29

1

earn commissions had the harassment not occurred. She had a

2

several month period of good commissions, as referred to by Dr.

3

McCarthy, and thereafter significantly not.

4

Now, of all the claimants, her performance was most

5

disputed by the Worthington folks. And there's a significant

6

record that was admitted in Exhibits 1 through 12 of the exhibits

7

authored by Ms. Thomas, where primarily because of letters by Mr.

8

Muffoletto, Mark Muffoletto, back to Ms. Thomas' attorney, Ms.

9

Weiss, and Mr. Caprario testified in a less than firing fashion

10

regard her performance. However, the description of her behavior

11

and her performance and what she would have earned that she

12

testified to is unrebutted here today. Moreover, the credibility

13

of Mr. Caprario's comments in light of everything else I heard

14

makes him less than an accurate describer of facts.

15

So I am inclined to give little weight to the

16

deposition testimony that the folks at Worthington, Moore felt

17

that Ms. Thomas was not a good performer. Rather, the paper

18

trail suggests that when she complained, that they started making

19

book on her. And as evidence of the rather remarkable

20

chronology, when there was a letter written by Ms. Weiss, Ms.

21

Thomas' attorney, on February 27, 2003, going into very specific

22

detail regarding Mr. Muffoletto's harassment of Ms. Thomas, the

23

incident with Ms. Diden, it was responded to with indignation,

24

contempt by Mr. Mark Muffoletto, son of Sam Muffoletto, who

25

purported to be their attorney.

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 30 of 37 30

1

In the letter which was gratuitously pugnacious, Mr.

2

Muffoletto made personal attacks of Ms. Thomas, and in the next

3

to last paragraph on the second page, actually threatened in a

4

way that would be comical for its maladroit and legally

5

insufficient conclusions were it not part of a larger chronology

6

of harassment. But in any event, he threatened action against

7

Ms. Weiss for having had a Federal Express package not marked

8

"personal and confidential" addressed to Mr. Caprario.

9

Mr. Muffoletto, on March 13th, wrote another letter to

10

Ms. Weiss and placed her on notice that he was going to file a

11

tortuous interference with the economic interest. A tortuous,

12

rather than tortious. Perhaps with acumen that he described in

13

his letters he's aware of a cause of action unknown to the Court.

14

But nonetheless, he threatened that.

15

Then on March 31st, 2003, coincidentally, I'm sure --

16

actually, it wasn't a coincidence -- Ms. Thomas is placed on, her

17

salary is reduced. She's told that she must produce better. And

18

then shortly thereof, May 16th, she writes a letter saying,

19

essentially a constructive discharge letter in which she says she

20

wanted to leave the company after she had sufficient time to find

21

work, July 11th. And Mr. Caprario wrote become back, Don't

22

bother, leave now, and fired her. I'm characterizing his

23

language.

24

So while there is some contradictory evidence before me

25

as to whether Ms. Thomas' performance would be sufficient to

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 31 of 37 31

1

justify the conclusions reached by Dr. McCarthy that she would

2

have continued to earn the commissions, in balance I find that

3

those allegations, considering the lack of credibility of

4

Caprario himself, considering the total record before me that

5

they have little credibility, the chronology of what happened

6

with her, quote-unquote, "poor job performance", after her lawyer

7

wrote a letter, and given the vituperative response from the

8

company to attack her, Ms. Weiss, that Dr. McCarthy's conclusions

9

are sound and that the damages sought for back pay with interest

10

of $114,737 are appropriate. She, too, would be entitled to

11

$50,000 of punitive damages for the malicious actions by Mr.

12

Muffoletto and, certainly, indifference is really too mild a

13

phrase to refer to Mark Muffoletto's letters in terms of

14

responding back on behalf of the company. It wasn't indifferent.

15

It was itself perhaps malicious. But certainly, the company was,

16

at a minimum, indifferent to her rights. So $50,000.

17

In her testimony, the factual basis is sufficient to

18

support a $50,000 compensatory award as well. But, of course,

19

the cap is $50,000.

20

The final witness was Ms. Nancy Guzman. She had been

21

hired as an administrative manager in the Maryland and Dover

22

offices. Her duties changed after she complained of sexual

23

harassment by Mr. Muffoletto. She described a series of by now

24

familiar behavior by Mr. Sam Muffoletto.

25

Mr. Muffoletto had diabetes and as a result of that had

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 32 of 37 32

1

lost some toes in one of more of his feet. He would pretend to

2

trip and to fall into her. So she learned, when he was around

3

and was walking towards her, to keep her elbows out so if he did

4

that, she could deflect him.

5

He made personal comments, would come into her office.

6

She wasn't sales and she wasn't one of his subordinates but for

7

the fact he was President. But he would come into her office and

8

made comments towards her. At one point he pinned her against

9

the wall in the Ellicott City office.

10

At one point she was trying to get come down the

11

stairs. He put his hand on the stairs so she couldn't go up and

12

down. As she tried to move past him, he sort of pinned her

13

there. She looked up and saw Robert Muffoletto watching. And

14

ultimately let her go.

15

Mr. Sam Muffoletto would make, as described by Ms.

16

Guzman, yummy noises when she walked by. She complained to Vice

17

President of Sales, Mr. N-O-B-I-L-I-O, Nobilio, I guess, and to a

18

Mr. O'Connor. She also spoke to Mr. Sowers, who said that he

19

would speak with Mark Muffoletto. Excuse me. Sowers said that

20

he did speak with Mark Muffoletto, who was the lawyer who

21

laughed.

22

She testified that at some point Ms. Phelan, who had

23

been counsel for Worthington, Moore, but whose appearance was

24

stricken in this case sometime earlier this year, conducted some

25

sort of investigation regarding the claim of Laura Thomas.

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 33 of 37 33

1

Notably, Laura Thomas, of course, there was no lawyer brought in

2

for any of the investigations of the earlier claims. And of

3

course that's evidence of a lack of, of an indifference to the

4

claims of the claimants.

5

But nonetheless, Ms. Phelan asked Ms. Guzman whether

6

she had seen harassment and she said that she had. Ms. Guzman

7

testified that Ms. Phelan said that had not happened. At some

8

point Ms. Guzman sought to speak with the EEOC investigator and

9

Ms. Phelan said she had to be present because Ms. Guzman was an

10

officer of the company. And shortly after this, she was fired.

11

She testified that Mr. Caprario, who she knew from

12

college, had a bad temper and used foul language. She was being

13

considered for a management position in the Delaware office. And

14

Mr. Muffoletto had suggested that they, that he should be able to

15

stay with her when he came up there for that.

16

She testified that after she made her complaints, she

17

rebuffed Mr. Muffoletto, that her duties changed. She was

18

assigned clerical work. And she began to have e-mails that she

19

thought were evidence of the fact that the company was keeping

20

book on her.

21

After she left, she tried to get a job. At least two

22

companies she thought she had promising leads. Recovar,

23

R-E-C-O-V-A-R, Company, and the law firm of Hogan and Hartson.

24

But when they checked with her employment references, which

25

included Worthington, Moore & Jacobs, she was not given the jobs.

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 34 of 37 34

1

She suffered from anxiety. She went to a doctor. She

2

couldn't breathe. And she had to pay for the doctor on her own

3

because she didn't have medical insurance. She felt an emotional

4

wreck. She had been subject to degrading behavior. She felt

5

worthless, humiliated and began to question her own esteem, her

6

own self-esteem. And she was physically upset when she testified

7

to that.

8

The company opposed her unemployment claim. Mr.

9

Caprario came to the hearing for the apparent purpose of adding

10

insult to injury, and used foul language towards her. That's

11

sufficiently, benignly referring to the comment -- what's the

12

page reference for that, please?

13

MR. LEBAU: 353 and 354.

14

THE COURT: Could I have that back, Steven,

15

temporarily, that exhibit book?

16

The actual testimony from Mr. Caprario's deposition

17

contains the following, beginning at Page 352:

18

"Q: Okay. Do you recall at the end of the

19

unemployment hearing for Nancy Guzman, that you made a comment to

20

her and her, her male friend who was with her at the unemployment

21

hearing?

22

A: I made a comment to Nancy or her male friend?"

23

This is Caprario testifying.

24

"Q: Yeah.

25

A: No.

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 35 of 37 35

1

Q: A threatening comment?

2

A: A threatening comment, no.

3

Q: You don't recall asking, making a comment like, "I

4

wonder who has the bigger dick, Nancy or Jeff?"

5

A: I didn't make that to Nancy or her friend.

6

Q: "Did you make that comment?

7

A: Yes.

8

Q: And who did you make that comment to?

9

A: Mark Muffoletto.

10

Q: Okay. And why did you make that comment to Mark

11

Muffoletto?

12

A: I don't know.

13

Q: You didn't whisper that comment, is that correct?

14

A: Did I whisper it?

15

Q: Did you whisper that comment?

16

A: I don't know if I whispered.

17

Q: You said it out loud, fairly loud, correct?

18

A: I don't -- I don't know.

19

Q: Okay. Well, prior to today, did you ever ask --

20

tell me that you wondered who had the bigger dick, Nancy or Jeff?

21

A: Did I tell you that?

22

Q: Yeah. Did you?

23

A: No.

24

Q: Okay.

25

A: So you're saying, is that your way of saying you

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 36 of 37 36

1

heard it?

2

Q: I'm saying somebody told me you said it and I think

3

you confirmed that you did make that comment, correct?

4

A: Okay.

5

Q: And do you think it was an appropriate comment to

6

make?

7

A: Probably not."

8

With respect to Ms. Guzman, the damages calculated by

9

Dr. McCarthy for her were back pay with interest of $23,591.

10

That's awarded or recommended that be awarded. Clearly, there's

11

actual malicious conduct by Sam Muffoletto, and more than

12

indifferent conduct by the company through Mr. Caprario. So she

13

would be entitled to $50,000 for punitive and also 50,000 for

14

compensatory, but they are capped together at $50,000.

15

As I said before, upon the entry of a final judgment,

16

to the extent that it needs to be actually affirmatively

17

recommended, I recommend that post-judgment interest be awarded.

18

And based upon the rather remarkable evidence before me of Mr.

19

Caprario's behavior, that is more than an ample factual basis to

20

support the non-monetary relief that the EEOC has requested. And

21

I will include in my report a recommendation that Chief Judge

22

Legg sign the draft order that was prepared.

23

What I intend to do now, of course, is once Ms. Zajac

24

has been able to give me a copy of the transcript, I will then

25

prepare and issue a brief written order that incorporates it by

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-2 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 37 of 37 37

1

reference, recites the damages that I have explained today, and

2

then will forward that on to Chief Judge Legg, with a

3

recommendation that he, after the appropriate period of time in

4

which to object to any findings of fact or conclusions of law,

5

award that amount of damages that I have said and enter a final

6

judgment.

7

After that, counsel will contact me with regard to any

8

further proceedings with respect to attorney's fees.

9

Michael, we need to make sure that when the report and

10

recommendation is served, it's not done just simply

11

electronically, although that alone would be sufficient because

12

the obligation of pro se litigants to have that contact. We'll

13

send it by regular mail as well.

14

All right. Thanks to Ms. Zajac and to Mr. Davis for

15

their help. Counsel, anything further we need to address at this

16

time? Thank you.

17

(Conclusion of Proceedings at 12:05 p.m.)

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

.''r"'..+J..? -~::~'~.'',~

, 1""'
f
Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL

Document 179-3

Filed 07/01/2009 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
NORTHERN DIVISION

\

)

UNITED STATES

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

WORTHINGTON, MOORE, & )

JACOBS, INC.,

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

Civil Action No. 04-CV-3127-BEL

ORDER

The Court entered Default Judgment in the above-captioned case on April 29,

2009. On June 18 and 19,2009, the Hon. Paul W. Grimm, the Chief United States

Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District of Maryland, conducted an evidentiary hearing

with regard to the relief sought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("the EEOC") and Plaintiff-Intervenors Laura Thomas and Nancy Guzman. This Order

addresses the non-monetary relief sought by the EEOC.
Under section 706(g)(I) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. S

2000e-5(g)(I)("Title VII"), the Court has the authority to enjoin the Defendant from

further violations of the statute. The default judgment entered in this case constitutes a

finding that Defendant violated Title VII with regard to seven former employees by

subjecting them to sexual harassment and retaliatory adverse employment actions. Based

.:~~, Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-3 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 2 of 8

on this judgment and the evidence adduced at the remedies hearing, the Court

permanently will enjoin Defendant from any further sexual harassment, and from further

retaliation against employees who complain of discrimination.

Further, as part of this injunction, Defendant is required to take the following

affirmative steps to ensure its compliance with Title VII:

•

Within 30 days of receipt of this Order from the EEOC's counsel of

record, Defendant will modify the "Resolution Procedure" of its "Policy Prohibiting

Discrimination and Harassment," Attachment A hereto, by removing the designations of

David Caprario and Sam Muffoletto as company officials to whom complaints of

discrimination must be made. In place of these individuals, Defendant will designate an

outside human-resources consultant or employment attorney as the company's

representative to whom complaints of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation should

be made. The modified policy will clearly state the representative's name, affiliation,

address, and phone number. Testimony received at the hearing has revealed that

Defendant's previous counsel of record should not serve in this capacity. Defendant will

further modify its policy by stating that employees can file a complaint of discrimination

with the EEOC's Baltimore Field Office (City Crescent Building, 10 South Howard Street, 3rd Floor, Baltimore, Maryland, 21201; 800/669-4000).

Within the 30-day time- frame noted above, Defendant will submit the modified

policy to the EEOC's counsel of record. The EEOC will file a letter with a Court

notifying it of the EEOC's receipt of the modified policy and stating any concerns related

to the modifications. Upon receiving notice that the EEOC is satisfied with the

modifications, the Court will issue an order requiring the Defendant to post the modified

2

--~~ ,..~.....:.--.---~-,...:.C' ase 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-3

T
Filed 07/01/2009 Page 3 of 8

policy at all offices where it conducts business, and to distribute the policy to all

employees and officers of the company. The EEOC will serve this Order upon

Defendant's CEO, and Defendant will undertake the required posting and distnbution

within five days of receipt ofthe Order.

•

Within 30 days of receipt ofthis Order from the EEOC, Defendant will

post copies of the notice, attached hereto as Attachment B, throughout Defendant's

offices, in all locations where notices and announcements customarily are posted. Within

ten business days of the posting, Defendant will provide the EEOC's counsel bfrecord

with certification that the posting has occurred.

IT IS SO ORDERED this _ day of July, 2009

Benson Everett Legg U.S. District Court Judge

Ii
3

i'

.:.•..-..:.".-.
!-"-~'"t Case 1:04-cv-03127-BE.L...... Document 179-3

-- ----0_,.__:-0._ _
Filed 07/01/20(:..0:9: .. Page 4 of 8

It
••

Worthii1gto'-n~ Moore.

&

••......
Jsco!Js

4872 Montgomery Road • Ellicott City • Maryland 21043- • Phone: (410)750-1722 • Fax: (410)750-1740

To:.

WMJ Personnel

From: Subject:

Sam

Muffoletto .

and

Dav.e.

Caprario

Worthington. Moore & Jacobs' Corporate .Policies

~ate: .:.

May? 2gg~

1'0"

-"

MEMORANDUM

The following are additional w,JIJ Policies to be followed at all times an employee is acting as a WMJ representative. on company propertY. or attending.a company function.

POLICY PROHIBITING DISCRIIVUNATION AND HARASSMENT

POUCY STATEMENT

Equal Employment Opportunity: Worthington, Moore & Jacobs is an equal . employment opportunity employer. All employment-related decisions are based upon employees' and applicants' demonstrated accomplishments and abilities. No employment decision may be based upon .any discriminatory factor prohibited by law (fqr example, race, color, creed, religion, national origin, ethnicitY, sex, age, marital status, physical or mental handicap that does not preclude jobperfonnance, or citizenship status) or stereotypes associated with these factors •. Consistent with this philosophy and policy, acts of discrimination based on any of these characteristics. will not be allowed, tolerated, or condoned by Worthington, Moore & Jacobs.

Harassment: Worthimgton, Moore & Jacobs is committed to providing'a work--

environment that is free from sexual.harassment and free from harassment based

upon 88>4 race, color, religion, natiqnal ~rigin. age, (fi$ilbiUtyor any other ground

prohibited by law. Such harassment. whether committed by employees,

management persomel, vendors, clients, customers or other non-employees, will not

be tolerated. This policy govems conduct in the workplace and at all other work-

rel.ated events. suc~ as business triP.sand .company-related functions.

.

DEFINITIONS

Harassment: Any communication or conduct that denigrates, ridiCules or is abusive to or about an indMdual because of one of the factors set forth above, when: .

A. . Such conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of interfering with an employee's work performance; or

~/.. '

1 of 4

THOMAS EXHIBIT 1

, ••........

D00525

:: '

.~

.. 0,-. "q

o

•••

Case

1:04-cv-03127-BEL

Document 179-3

-;"

,.':':::/ ..

~"",,''''''

;

Filed 07/01/2009

----

Page 5 of 8

B. Such conduct creates an intimidating, hostile or otherwise offensive

work environment"

. --~~'

-

Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome_sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal. physic?!l.nonverbal or visual communication or conduct of a sexual nature when:

A. Submission to that conduct or communication is made either explicitly

~. or implicitly a term or condition of employment

.... .•

""

. •..:';'"

.~"

- 8. Submission to or rejeCtIonof that conduct or communication is used as

a basis for employment ~ecislons affecting the em~loyee;

-

C.- Such conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of interfering with an employee's work perfonnance; or

D. Such conduct creates an intimidating. hostile or otherwise. offensive
work environment

Examples of conduct that may be harassment:

Verbal: Comments, slurs, jokes. remarks, commentaries or epithets that

demean,~ridicule

or

offend

on

one

of

the

bases

identified

above. -

Nonverba/:Leering, looking someone up and down, making sexual gestures.-

Visual: Displaying offensive or sexually oriented objects, pictures. cartoons, posters or electronic programs.

Physical: Unwanted touching, impec;fingor blocking movement, any physical
interference.Wittlrl()r:mal wo'1<or movement, interference with equipment, tools or possession~, assault or attempted aSsault. or sexual assault

RESOL. U- nONPROCEDURE
It is important that any issues of disaimination or harassment be identified and resolved promptly. Employe~s who feel they have.experienced or have witnessed discrimination or harassment in violation of this policy should discuss the offensive conduct Immediately to one of the following persons: Sam Muffoletto or Dave Caprario. We cannot suffidently stress the necessity of having this discussion immediately. It becomes more difficult to detennine exactly what happened and to remedy a situation if an employee waits before
raising the issue.

Once a situation has been reported, an investigation will be conducted. The

type ofinvestigation undertaken will depend upon the nature of the complaint, .

but will usually involve interviews of the person(s) making the report, the

.

i'

person(s) a~sed of the conduct, and any necessary witnesses;

2 of 4

D00526

~"'~."':"':.:.'

-.. "~t<--. ~ Case 1:04-cv-03127-BE,;' L. Document 179-3 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 6 of 8

'--'

'-"

Confidentiality will be maintained to the degree consistent with completing a full investigation of the reported conduct.

Appropriate corrective or di~ciplinary action will occur jf the investigation

reveals that discrimination. or harassment has occurred. In addition, the

Company may take corrective or disciplinary action in situations where the

investigation does npt reveal illegal discrimination or harassment, but does

reveal that the employee has. engaged in conduct which is disruptive or

inconsistent with the Company's poliCies, g0!3's or operations.

~.

~I

~

All employees-a~ protected from retaliation asa resu/fOfureporting

discrimination or harassment or participating in an Investigation of a complaint

of discrimination or harassmenl If an employee feels that he/she is being

.. re~iated against because of a report Of because of participation in the

investigation, he/she should report this immediately to one of the persons.

named above. Also, if an employee feels that discrimination or harassment is

recurring oris continuing after discipline has been imposed orthatretaliation is

occurring because of the report or the discipline imposed, he/she should report

this .immediately toone of the persons named above.

POTENTIAL PENALnes

Depending on the circumstances of each case and the seriousness of the

offense, corrective or disciplinary action up to and including dismissal wiD be

taken if it is found that discrimination or harassment occurred.

.

Worthington, Moore & Jacobs may also elect to impose discipline upon persons who engage in conduct that is abusive, offensive or disruptive, even if that conduct does not constitute h.arassment on one of the bases forbidden by law.

Disciplinary aC\icn up to and including dismissal will be taken against those who retaliate or threaten to retaliate against any person who files a complaint .or assists in the Investigation of a complaint

Disciplinary action may also be taken against supervisors or managers who

know of discrimination or harassment occurring and who fail to take prompt

and appropriate actiqn.

.

ACTIONS EMPLOYEES CAN TAKE,TO IMPROVE THE WORKING
ENVIRONMENT

Some harassment issues arise out of thoughtlessness or miscommunication, '

rather than intentional conduct, and thus can be avoided by developing a

greater awareness regari:ling potentially offensive' conduct and cOmmon

communication errors:

.'

//

3 of 4

D00527

'<-

;".\.,

, ~..:.,;' .:.;.~-

~~Case 1:04-cv-03127-BE::L,'

Document 179-3

G

.•••..•....

..--.:
',,*
Filed 07/01/200; 9 1 '-'

Page 7 of 8

-----r-- -----
/1

4 of 4

D00528 _

Case 1:04-cv-03127-BEL Document 179-3 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 8 of 8
NOTICE TO ALL WORTHINGTON, MOORE & JACOBS EMPLOYEES
This Notice is being posted pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland following an entry of equitable relief in EEOC et. al v. Worthington Moore & Jacobs, Inc., No. BEL-04-03127, on June_, _ 2009. Pursuant to the Court's Order, Worthington, Moore & Jacobs was:
(1) ordered to pay monetary relief to the victims of harassment and retaliation;
(2) enjoined from further discrimination against female employees, and from further retaliation against employees who complain of discrimination; and
(4) ordered to take affirmative steps to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 196, as amended, including the modification of its harassment policy.
EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact 1-800-669-4000/ TTY (410) 962-6065. General information may also be obtained on the Internet at wWW.eeoc.gov.

Date

Judge Benson E. Legg

United States District Court Judge

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

 
 U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Worthington, More & Jacobs, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
2005 WL 1200533 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Maryland.
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Plaintiff, v.
WORTHINGTON, MORE & JACOBS, INC. Defendant. No. Civ. L–04–3127. | May 18, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Maria Luisa Morocco, Debra Michele Lawrence, Gerald S. Kiel, Gwendolyn Young Reams, Maria Salacuse, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiff.
Jeanne M. Phelan, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
LEGG, Chief J.
*1 Now pending in this Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation suit are (i) Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) motion to file a surreply, and (ii) Defendant Worthington, More, & Jacobs, Inc.’s (“WMJ” or “Defendant”) motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Because WMJ relies upon documents outside of the pleadings, the Court will treat WMJ’s motion as one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated herein, the Court will, by separate Order filed this date, (i) DENY the EEOC’s motion to file a surreply, and (ii) DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE WMJ’s motion for summary judgment.
I. BACKGROUND On September 30, 2004, the EEOC filed its Complaint in the instant action on behalf of Laura Thomas, Elizabeth Ford, Jill Hennen, Melanie Sandy, Nancy Guzman, Lynne Gears, Diana Bantom, and other female employees of WMJ. The Complaint alleges that WMJ violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., by engaging in sexual harassment and retaliation.
On February 9, 2005, WMJ filed a partial motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. WMJ seeks summary judgment on the claims filed on behalf of Elizabeth Ford, Jill Hennen, and Melanie Sandy, arguing that they are untimely. WMJ points out that the EEOC initially dismissed the above individuals’ charges in 2002, and they did not file suit within 90 days of receipt of their right to sue letters. The EEOC counters that it reopened the charges of Ford, Hennen, and Sandy after it received other charges against WMJ, and that the claims are therefore valid.
On April 12, 2005, the EEOC moved to file a surreply to WMJ’s motion to dismiss. WMJ opposes the EEOC’s request.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Motion to File Surreply Further briefing on WMJ’s motion to dismiss is not necessary. The Court will consider the motion based upon the pleadings
1

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Worthington, More & Jacobs, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005) filed to date. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the EEOC’s motion to file a surreply. (Docket No. 14.) B. Motion for Summary Judgment WMJ’s motion for summary judgment is premature. Under the Court’s scheduling procedure, dispositive motions are filed after the close of discovery. In addition, resolution of the issues raised in WMJ’s motion would not end the case. There is no reason to decide this case in a piecemeal fashion. Accordingly, WMJ’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, subject to refiling at the close of discovery. (Docket No. 6.) III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, the Court will, by separate Order filed this date:
(i) DENY the EEOC’s motion to file a surreply (Docket No. 14); and (ii) DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 6). The parties may re-assert their arguments after the close of discovery.
2

 
 Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 1 of 17
CASREF,CLOSED
U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04−cv−03127−BEL

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Benson Everett Legg Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/30/2004 Date Terminated: 07/21/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Maria Luisa Morocco US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092730 Fax: 14109624270 Email: maria.morocco@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Debra Michele Lawrence U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109623932 Fax: 4102092221 Email: debra.lawrence@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald S Kiel US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624207 Fax: 14109624270 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624260 Fax: 14109622817

Maria Salacuse U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Baltimore Field Office 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092733 Fax: 14109624270 Email: maria.salacuse@eeoc.gov

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 2 of 17 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Laura Thomas Laura Thomas
Intervenor Plaintiff Nancy Guzman

represented by John Peter Relman Relman Dane and Colfax PLLC 1225 19th St NW Ste 600 Washington, DC 20036 12027281888 Fax: 12027280848 Email: jrelman@relmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Kolar Ramchandani Relman Dane and Colfax PLLC 1225 19th St NW Ste 600 Washington, DC 20036 12027281888 Fax: 12027280848 Email: tramchandani@relmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer I Klar Relman and Associates PLLC 1225 19th St NW Ste 600 Washington, DC 20036 12027281888 Fax: 12027280848 Email: jklar@relmanlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly Marie Baldrate Relman and Associates PLLC 1225 19th St NW Ste 600 Washington, DC 20036 12027281888 Fax: 12027280848 Email: kbaldrate@relmanlaw.com TERMINATED: 05/04/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Megan Cacace Relman Dane and Colfax PLLC 1225 19th St NW Ste 600 Washington, DC 20036 12027281888 Fax: 12027280848 Email: mmgates@relmanlaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen B Lebau Lebau and Neuworth LLC 606 Baltimore Ave Ste 201 Baltimore, MD 21204 14102963030 Fax: 14102968660 Email: sl@joblaws.net

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 3 of 17
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anna L Jefferson Lebau and Neuworth LLC 606 Baltimore Ave Ste 201 Baltimore, MD 21204 14102963030 Fax: 14102968660 Email: aj@joblaws.net TERMINATED: 08/23/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Peter Relman (See above for address)
Richard P Neuworth Lebau and Neuworth PA 606 Baltimore Ave Ste 201 Baltimore, MD 21204 14102963030 Fax: 14102968660 Email: rn@joblaws.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.

represented by Jeanne M Phelan DLA Piper LLP (US) The Marbury Building 6225 Smith Avenue Baltimore, MD 21209−3600 14105804221 Fax: 14105803221 Email: jeanne.phelan@dlapiper.com TERMINATED: 02/19/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A Glessner Law Offices of Stephen A Glessner 226 E Patrick St Frederick, MD 21701 13016638200 Fax: 13016980438 Email: glessnerlaw@comcast.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Garnishee
1st Mariner Bank c/o Eugene A. Fiedman Corporate Counsel 3301 Boston Street Baltimore, MD 21224 410−558−4169
Garnishee
Eastern Savings Bank

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 4 of 17
Garnishee Howard Bank Garnishee MTBank Garnishee SunTrust Bank

Date Filed 09/30/2004 09/30/2004 10/01/2004 01/25/2005 02/03/2005 02/03/2005 02/09/2005
02/25/2005 02/25/2005 02/25/2005
02/28/2005
03/10/2005
03/16/2005 04/01/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. , filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(raf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
JURY TRIAL DEMAND by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (raf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
2 Summons Issued (20 days) as to Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. (raf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. served on 1/20/2005, answer due 2/9/2005. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
4 MOTION to Intervene by Laura Thomas. Responses due by 2/20/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Relman, John) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
5 NOTICE by Laura Thomas of Service of Motion to Intervene (Relman, John) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
6 MOTION to Dismiss /Motion for Summary Judgment by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Responses due by 2/26/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Exhibit List# 3 Exhibits 1 through 9# 4 Exhibit 10# 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 02/09/2005)
7 ORDER granting 4 Motion of Laura Thomas to Intervene. Signed by Judge Benson E Legg on 2/24/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
8 Intervenor COMPLAINT with Jury Demand, filed by Laura Thomas.(mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
9 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 6 MOTION to Dismiss /Motion for Summary Judgment by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 3/14/2005 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
10 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING re 9 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 6 MOTION to Dismiss /Motion for Summary Judgment Responses due by 3/10/2005. Replies due by 4/1/2005. Signed by Judge Benson E Legg on 2/28/2005. (Legg, Benson) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
11 RESPONSE in Opposition re 6 MOTION to Dismiss /Motion for Summary Judgment filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 3/24/2005. (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
12 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc..(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 03/16/2005)
13 REPLY to Response to Motion re 6 MOTION to Dismiss /Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. (Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 04/01/2005)

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 5 of 17

04/12/2005

14 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 4/29/2005 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 04/12/2005)

05/02/2005

15 RESPONSE in Opposition re 14 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply filed by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Replies due by 5/16/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Response to EEOC's Surreply Brief)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 05/02/2005)

05/18/2005

16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Report due by 9/30/2005. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 5/18/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/19/2005)

05/18/2005

17 MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 5/18/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/19/2005)

05/18/2005

18 ORDER denying without Prejudice 6 Motion of Defendant to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment; and, denying 14 Motion of Plaintiff for Leave to File a Surreply. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 5/18/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/19/2005)

05/25/2005

19 MOTION for Kelly M. Baldrate to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Laura Thomas. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/26/2005)

05/26/2005

20 MARGINAL ORDER granting 19 Motion of Plaintiff−Intervenor, Laura Thomas for Kelly M. Baldrate to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee paid Receipt #14637002216 − for Document #20 see #19). Signed by Clerk on 5/26/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/26/2005)

05/26/2005

21 MOTION for Jennifer I. Klar to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Laura Thomas. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/27/2005)

05/26/2005

22 MARGINAL ORDER granting 21 Motion of plaintiff to Appear Pro Hac Vice (fee pd). Signed by Deputy Clerk on 5/26/05. (For #22, see #21) (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/27/2005)

05/31/2005

23 MOTION to Intervene As Plaintiff by Nancy Guzman. Responses due by 6/17/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum# 2 Complaint# 3 Exhibit (Ex. 1 to Complaint)# 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Jefferson, Anna) (Entered: 05/31/2005)

06/01/2005

24 Report re: Deposition hours (Relman, John) (Entered: 06/01/2005)

06/01/2005

25 ORDER AUTHORIZING 15 deposition hours per side as therein set forth. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 6/1/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/02/2005)

06/02/2005

26 ANSWER to Complaint by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc..(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 06/02/2005)

06/22/2005

27 ORDER granting 23 Motion of Nancy Guzman to Intervene. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 6/22/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/23/2005)

06/23/2005

28 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Nancy Guzman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EEOC Determination)(Jefferson, Anna) (Entered: 06/23/2005)

07/06/2005

29 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc..(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 07/06/2005)

07/15/2005

30 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Intervenors and by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 8/1/2005 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 07/15/2005)

07/18/2005

31 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 07/18/2005. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 07/18/2005)

08/11/2005

32 Consent MOTION for Protective Order by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Responses due by 8/29/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 08/11/2005)

09/01/2005

33 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Morocco, Maria)

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 6 of 17

09/08/2005 09/19/2005
09/28/2005 10/06/2005 10/07/2005 10/24/2005 10/26/2005
11/01/2005 11/02/2005 11/10/2005
11/11/2005 11/15/2005 11/18/2005
11/18/2005 11/18/2005 11/21/2005
11/22/2005

(Entered: 09/01/2005)
34 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 9/7/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
35 NOTICE of service of response to motion to compel discovery by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. re 33 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery by Plaintiff EEOC (Attachments: # 1 Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answer to Interrogatory No. 3)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
36 NOTICE of service of reply to response to motion to compel discovery by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
37 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by Nancy Guzman (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Compel)(Jefferson, Anna) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
38 MOTION to Compel Identification of Witnesses in Response to Interrogatory No. 3 by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 10/24/2005 (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
39 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Nancy Guzman. Responses due by 11/10/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit `# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 3)(Lebau, Stephen) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
40 NOTICE of service of response to motion to compel discovery by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. re 37 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery by Intervenor Guzman (Attachments: # 1 Opposition to Intervenor Guzman's Motion to Compel Discovery)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
41 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 11/18/2005 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
42 MOTION for Other Relief limine motion by Nancy Guzman. Responses due by 11/21/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EX 1 motion to compel# 2 Exhibit Ex 2 − Def. Supp. Responses)(Lebau, Stephen) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
43 RESPONSE in Opposition re 39 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Intervenor Guzman filed by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Replies due by 11/28/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
44 REPLY to Response to Motion re 39 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by Nancy Guzman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXHIBIT 1)(Lebau, Stephen) (Entered: 11/11/2005)
45 ORDER SETTING date for teleconference. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 11/15/05. (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
46 MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 12/5/2005 (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(Morocco, Maria) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/22/2005 to replace original exhibits that did not scan properly) (mcb, Deputy Clerk). Modified on 11/22/2005 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 11/18/2005)
47 NOTICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 42 MOTION for Other Relief limine motion (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
48 Correspondence re: teleconference on 11.22.05 (Lebau, Stephen) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
49 RESPONSE in Opposition re 42 MOTION for Other Relief limine motion /motion to disqualify counsel filed by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Replies due by 12/5/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3# 2 Exhibit 4# 3 Exhibit 5# 4 Exhibit 6# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7 Exhibit 9)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
50 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion to Compel, granting 39 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, granting 41 Motion for Extension of Time

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 7 of 17

11/22/2005 11/26/2005 12/05/2005 12/13/2005 12/21/2005
12/22/2005
12/23/2005 12/27/2005 01/12/2006 01/12/2006
01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/18/2006 01/18/2006
02/01/2006 02/28/2006

to Complete Discovery, denying 42 Motion to Disqualify, granting 46 Motion to Compel deposition testimony as thererin set forth. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 11/22/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
Telephone Conference held on 11/22/2005 held before Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg. (Recorded on Tape) (kam, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
51 MOTION for Protective Order by Nancy Guzman. Responses due by 12/13/2005 (Lebau, Stephen) (Entered: 11/26/2005)
52 ANSWER to Complaint by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc..(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
53 RESPONSE in Opposition re 51 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Replies due by 12/27/2005. (Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
54 MOTION to Dismiss just COUNT III, COBRA claim by Nancy Guzman. Responses due by 1/9/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit alleged COBRA notice# 2 Exhibit 2 − 4th Cir case# 3 Exhibit 3 dismissal communications# 4 Text of Proposed Order order)(Lebau, Stephen) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
55 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Responses due by 1/9/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
56 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 55 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery to 1/13/2006. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 12/23/05. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
57 REPLY to Response to Motion re 51 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Nancy Guzman. (Lebau, Stephen) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
58 Correspondence re: Discovery/Dep. of Defense Counsel (Lebau, Stephen) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
59 SEALED MOTION for Discovery (To Compel Answers to Deposition Questions) by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Responses due by 1/30/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3)(Phelan, Jeanne) MOTION for Discovery (To Compel Answers to Deposition Questions) by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Responses due by 1/30/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3)(Phelan, Jeanne) Modified on 1/18/2006 (hml, Deputy Clerk). Modified on 2/16/2006 (cags, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
60 ORDER granting 54 Unopposed Motion of Ms. Guzman to Dismiss her COBRA claim.. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 1/13/06. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
61 STATUS REPORT by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
62 MOTION to Seal Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony and Related Filings by Laura Thomas. Responses due by 2/6/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Relman, John) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
63 RESPONSE in Opposition re 59 MOTION for Discovery (To Compel Answers to Deposition Questions) (memorandum in support filed seperately under seal) filed by Laura Thomas. Replies due by 2/1/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Relman, John) (SEALED DOCUMENT REC'D 1/18/06) Modified on 1/18/2006 (hml, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 01/18/2006)
64 NOTICE by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. re 63 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed under temporary seal (Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
65 ORDER SETTING date for a Teleconference. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 2/28/06. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2006)

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 8 of 17

03/03/2006

66 ORDER granting 59 Motion for Discovery (Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony). Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 3/3/06. (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2006)

03/03/2006

SEALED Telephone Conference held on 3/3/2006 held before Judge Benson Everett Legg. (Recorded on Tape) (kam, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/10/2006)

03/13/2006

67 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file summary judgment briefs by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 3/30/2006 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

03/14/2006

68 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 67 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 03/14/2006. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 03/14/2006)

03/25/2006

69 STIPULATION Regarding Confidentiality of Portions of the Deposition Testimony of Intervenor Laura Thomas by Laura Thomas. (Relman, John) (Entered: 03/25/2006)

03/27/2006

70 STIPULATED ORDER Regarding Confidentiality of Portions of the Deposition Testimony of Intervenor Laura Thomas (Local Rule 104.13). Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 3/27/06. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

03/28/2006

71 PAPERLESS ORDER denying as moot 51 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 03/28/2006. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 03/28/2006)

03/28/2006

72 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 62 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 03/28/2006. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 03/28/2006)

04/19/2006

73 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion and Responses by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Responses due by 5/8/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 04/19/2006)

04/19/2006

74 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 73 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 04/19/2006. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 04/19/2006)

04/29/2006

75 (FILED IN ERROR − HAS REFILED − SEE #78) MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. Responses due by 5/16/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Motion (UNLINKED) # 2 Notice of Filing Lengthy Exhibits)(Phelan, Jeanne) Modified on 5/1/2006 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/29/2006)

05/01/2006

76 Consent MOTION for Leave to file Revised Memorandum in Support to 75 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. Responses due by 5/18/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (revised)# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Phelan, Jeanne) Modified on 5/1/2006 (mcb, Deputy Clerk. (Entered: 05/01/2006)

05/01/2006

77 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 76 Consent Motion for Leave to File. The Clerk will be instructed to UNLINK the Memorandum to 75 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the defendant shall refile the revised memorandum today. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 05/01/2006. (Legg, Benson Everett) Modified on 5/1/2006 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 05/01/2006)

05/02/2006

78 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Responses due by 5/19/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support# 2 Notice of Filing Lengthy Exhibits)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 05/02/2006)

05/03/2006

79 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Kelly M. Baldrate by Laura Thomas. Responses due by 5/22/2006 (Relman, John) (Entered: 05/03/2006)

05/04/2006

80 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 79 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Kelly Marie Baldrate terminated. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 5/4/06. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/05/2006)

05/09/2006

81 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 5/26/2006 (Morocco, Maria)

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 9 of 17

05/09/2006 06/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/07/2006
06/07/2006 06/07/2006 06/27/2006
06/28/2006 06/29/2006 07/07/2006 07/11/2006 07/14/2006 07/28/2006

(Entered: 05/09/2006)
82 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 81 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 05/09/2006. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
83 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Two Day Extension) by Laura Thomas. Responses due by 6/19/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Relman, John) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
84 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 83 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 06/02/2006. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
85 RESPONSE in Opposition re 78 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Nancy Guzman. Replies due by 6/21/2006. (Lebau, Stephen) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
86 NOTICE by Nancy Guzman LENGHTY EXHIBITS (Lebau, Stephen) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
87 RESPONSE in Opposition re 78 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Laura Thomas. Replies due by 6/21/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Errata K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit O# 16 Exhibit P# 17 Exhibit Q# 18 Exhibit R# 19 Exhibit S# 20 Exhibit T# 21 Exhibit U# 22 Exhibit V# 23 Exhibit W)(Relman, John) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
88 NOTICE by Laura Thomas re 87 Response in Opposition to Motion,, of Filing of Lengthy Exhibit (Relman, John) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
89 RESPONSE in Opposition re 78 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 6/21/2006. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
90 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 89 Response in Opposition to Motion, 85 Response in Opposition to Motion, 87 Response in Opposition to Motion,, by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Responses due by 7/14/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
91 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 90 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 06/28/2006. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
92 REPLY to Response to Motion re 78 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Reply to Plaintiff EEOC Opposition to Motion) filed by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 29# 2 Exhibit 30)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
93 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 85 Response in Opposition to Motion, 87 Response in Opposition to Motion,, by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Responses due by 7/24/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
94 REPLY to Response to Motion re 78 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Reply to Opposition of Intervenor Plaintiffs) filed by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing Lengthy Exhibits)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
95 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 93 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 07/14/2006. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
96 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Laura Thomas. Responses due by 8/14/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Intervenor Thomas'

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 10 of 17

08/14/2006
08/15/2006 08/15/2006 08/17/2006
08/17/2006 02/23/2007 03/29/2007 03/30/2007 03/30/2007 04/11/2007 04/12/2007 04/16/2007 04/19/2007
04/20/2007
05/03/2007 05/04/2007 06/14/2007 06/14/2007

Sur−Reply)(Relman, John) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
97 RESPONSE re 96 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Reply to Intervenor Thomas's Surreply)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
98 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 96 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 08/15/2006. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
99 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 97 defendant's response. Briefing on the motion for summary judgment is closed. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 08/15/2006. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
100 Intervenor Laura Thomas' SURREPLY to Defendant's Reply to Intervenor Laura Thomas' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed by Laura Thomas. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 8/17/2006 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 08/17/2006)
101 REPLY to 100 Intervenor Thomas's SURREPLY, filed by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
102 ORDER DIRECTING Counsel to submit paper copies of Docket Entry No. 78, 85 and 86, 87 and 92 to Chambers no later than February 27, 2007. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 2/23/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
103 NOTICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of phone number change (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
104 MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 3/30/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
105 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 78 Motion of Defendant for Partial Summary Judgment. A Hearing is scheduled for April 19, 2007. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 3/30/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
106 Status Report Submitted by Intervenors Thomas, Guzman, and by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
107 Status Report Submitted by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. (Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
108 MOTION for Reconsideration or to stay any ruling on laches until after trial by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 5/3/2007 (Attachments: # 1)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
Motion Hearing held on 4/19/2007 re 78 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. held before Judge Benson Everett Legg. The Court will submit an order at a later date. (Court Reporter: Jackie Sovich) (kmt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
109 ORDER re: hearing on Worthington, Moore and Jacob's laches defense and other issues; denying Guzman's motion to disqualify Jeanne Phelan as defense counsel; denying as moot 108 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 4/20/07 (cags, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
110 Status Report Submitted by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
111 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 110 status report. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 05/04/2007. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
112 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Laches Briefing by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Responses due by 7/2/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
113 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 112 Motion for Extension of Time to File Document. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 06/14/2007. (Legg, Benson

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 11 of 17

06/18/2007
07/13/2007
07/23/2007
08/21/2007 08/23/2007 10/02/2008 10/08/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/21/2008 10/22/2008 10/22/2008
10/22/2008 10/27/2008 10/27/2008 10/27/2008 10/29/2008 10/29/2008

Everett) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
114 Supplemental to Laches Issue −− Defendant's Memorandum Regarding Laches Issue Related to Diana Bantom and Lynne Geers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
115 RESPONSE re 114 Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Laches Issue Related to Bantom and Geers filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
116 REPLY Memorandum Regarding Laches Issue Related to Diana Bantom and Lynne Geers by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. Responses due by 8/9/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4# 2 Exhibit 5# 3 Exhibit 6# 4 Exhibit 7# 5 Exhibit 8# 6 Exhibit 9# 7 Exhibit 10)(Phelan, Jeanne) Modified on 7/24/2007 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 07/23/2007)
117 NOTICE by Nancy Guzman Notice of Withdrawal (Jefferson, Anna) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
118 PAPERLESS ORDER approving 117 Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney filed by Nancy Guzman. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 8/23/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
119 Request for Conference (Relman, John) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
120 MEMORANDUM to Counsel. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 10/8/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
121 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm for Expedited Settlement Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 10/16/08. (cags, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
122 ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/16/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
123 Correspondence re: Confirming Change in Settlement Conference Date to January 13, 2009 with Consent of the Court and all Parties (Relman, John) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
124 MEMORANDUM. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 10/22/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
125 ORDER denying 78 MOTION of Defendant for Partial Summary Judgment; the Court will schedule an expedited Settlement Conference and will SCHEDULE a back−up trial date as therein set forth. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 10/22/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
126 ORDER scheduling a Telephone Conference for October 27, 2008. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 10/22/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
Telephone Conference held on 10/27/2008 before Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
127 ORDER CONFIRMING the schedule set in this case. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 10/27/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
Telephone Conference held on 10/27/2008 held before Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg. (Recorded on Tape) (kam, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
128 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Megan Moran−Gates on behalf of Laura Thomas Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 04160000000001896237. by Laura Thomas (Relman, John) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
129 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 128 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for attorney Megan Moran−Gates on behalf of Laura Thomas. Directing attorney Megan Moran−Gates to register on−line for CM/ECF at

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 12 of 17

11/25/2008 12/02/2008 12/02/2008 12/03/2008
12/04/2008 12/05/2008
12/05/2008 12/08/2008 01/13/2009 01/14/2009 01/21/2009 01/21/2009 01/21/2009 01/23/2009 01/23/2009 01/23/2009 01/27/2009 02/10/2009 02/11/2009

http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/attorney/registration.asp.. Signed by Clerk on 10/29/08. (cmns, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
130 MOTION for Leave to File by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Responses due by 12/12/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Exhibit)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
131 LETTER ORDER to Counsel re Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 12/2/08. (egs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
132 Request for Conference (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
133 PAPERLESS ORDER Approving Paper No. 132, Request for Telephone Conference filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Court would like for Ms. Morocco to coordinate with counsel and the Court a Telephone Conference to be held during the weeks of 12/8/08 or 12/15/08. The dates of December 8th, 10th, 11th, 12th, at 4:00 p.m. and December 15th, 16th, 17th, at 9:30 a.m. would be available for Judge Grimm. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 12/3/08. (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
134 Correspondence re: conference call (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
135 (FILED IN ERROR − WILL REFILE) NOTICE by Laura Thomas, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Nancy Guzman, Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. Notice of Withdrawal (Alexander, Jennifer) Modified on 12/5/2008 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 12/05/2008)
136 NOTICE by Nancy Guzman Notice of Withdrawal (Alexander, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
137 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING re 136 Notice Of Withdrawal of appearance of Jennifer Alexander. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 12/08/2008. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
Settlement Conference held on 1/13/2009 before Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
138 ORDER CONFIRMING the deadlines set in this case. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 1/13/09. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
139 MOTION in Limine disqualify counsel, expidited by Nancy Guzman Responses due by 2/9/2009 (Lebau, Stephen) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
140 MOTION to Expedite Briefing on Renewd Motion by Nancy Guzman Responses due by 2/9/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order order)(Lebau, Stephen) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm no longer assigned to case. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
141 Correspondence re: Plaintiff Nancy Guzman's Motion for Expedited Briefing On Her Renewed Motion In Limine (Relman, John) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
142 NOTICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 139 MOTION in Limine disqualify counsel, expidited (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
143 NOTICE by Laura Thomas, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Nancy Guzman re 140 MOTION to Expedite Briefing on Renewd Motion (Relman, John) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
144 ORDER denying 140 Motion of Plaintiff to Expedite Briefing. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 1/27/09. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
145 RESPONSE to Motion re 139 MOTION in Limine disqualify counsel, expidited filed by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc.. Replies due by 2/24/2009. (Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 02/10/2009)
146 Correspondence re: pretrial procedures (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 02/11/2009)

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 13 of 17

02/11/2009

Telephone Conference held on 2/11/2009 before Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2009)

02/11/2009

Telephone Conference held on 2/11/2009 held before Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg. (Recorded on Tape) (kam, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/24/2009)

02/12/2009

147 ORDER CONFIRMING the results of the Telephone Conference held on February 11, 2009. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 2/12/09. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2009)

02/17/2009

148 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. Responses due by 3/6/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Phelan, Jeanne) (Entered: 02/17/2009)

02/17/2009

149 NOTICE by Laura Thomas, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Nancy Guzman re 147 Order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Relman, John) (Entered: 02/17/2009)

02/19/2009

150 ORDER ENTERING Default against WMJ; Directing Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 2/19/09(cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/19/2009)

02/19/2009

153 ORDER granting 148 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Worthington, Moore and Jacobs. Attorney Jeanne M Phelan terminated. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 2/18/09. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

02/20/2009

151 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm for hearing on damages. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 2/20/09. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

02/20/2009

152 ORDER directing the Scheduling Order of January 13, 2009 (Docket No. 138) has been suspended due to the recent entry of default in this matter. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 2/20/09. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

03/11/2009

154 Joint MOTION for Default Judgment as to by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Responses due by 3/30/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement memorandum, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 03/11/2009)

04/09/2009 155 Correspondence re: damages hearing (Relman, John) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

04/15/2009

Telephone Conference held on 4/15/2009 before Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2009)

04/16/2009

156 LETTER ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 4/15/09. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2009)

04/16/2009

157 Correspondence re: requesting clarification (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 04/16/2009)

04/17/2009

158 LETTER ORDER addressing 157 EEOC's Correspondence Requesting Clarification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 4/17/09. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/20/2009)

04/20/2009

159 PAPERLESS ORDER regarding Paper No. 156, scheduling a two day Hearing on Damages in this case for June 18 and 19th, 2009 to begin at 9:30 a.m. Thanking counsel in advance for their cooperation in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 4/20/09. (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 04/20/2009)

04/29/2009

160 JUDGMENT AND ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 4/29/09. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/29/2009)

05/07/2009

161 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 156 Order, 160 Judgment, 154 Joint MOTION for Default Judgment as to David Caprario, Defendant's Chief Executive Offcer (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 05/07/2009)

05/29/2009

162 Correspondence re: expert report (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 14 of 17

06/01/2009

163 Correspondence re: claimant Melanie Goldsberry (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/04/2009

164 AFFIDAVIT re 162 Miscellaneous Correspondence by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Amy McCarthy)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

06/08/2009

165 ORDER granting request to have Dr. McCarthy's report entered into evidence and Dr. McCarthy is not required to testify at trial; requesting that Dr. McCarthy be available by telephone as therein set forth. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 6/8/09. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/09/2009)

06/11/2009

166 NOTICE by Laura Thomas, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Nancy Guzman of Delivery (Relman, John) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/11/2009

167 TRIAL BRIEF by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/11/2009

168 Correspondence re: sowers deposition designations (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/11/2009

169 TRIAL BRIEF by Laura Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Errata B)(Relman, John) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

06/12/2009

170 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/12/2009)

06/16/2009

171 Correspondence re: EEOC v. Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc., Civil Action No. BEL−04−3127 (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

06/16/2009

172 (FILED IN ERROR − WILL REFILE) Substantive legal issues − addressing (Morocco, Maria) Modified on 6/16/2009 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 06/16/2009)

06/16/2009 173 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

06/17/2009

174 PAPERLESS ORDER APPROVING PAPER NO. 171. The claimants are not required to return to the Court on June 19th, and it will not be necessary to read the text of the admitted designations into the Court record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 06/17/09. (Grimm, Paul) (mvz) (Entered: 06/17/2009)

06/18/2009

175 Correspondence re: EEOC's Explanation of Requested Relief (Docket 167) (Attachments: # 1 Notice to Employees)(Salacuse, Maria) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/18/2009

176 Motion Hearing on damages held on 6/18/2009 held before Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm. (Court Reporter: M. Zajac.) (std, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/18/2009)

06/19/2009

177 Motion Hearing on finding of facts and conclusions of law held on 6/19/2009 before Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm. (Court Reporter: M. Zajac.) (std, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/30/2009

178 MOTIONS HEARING EXHIBITS (filed separately). (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

07/01/2009

179 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re Damages. Objections to RRdue by 7/16/2009. Responses due by 7/20/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 7/1/09. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (c/m:WMJ)(hmls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/01/2009)

07/01/2009 180 Correspondence re: address of defendant (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 07/01/2009)

07/08/2009

181 Correspondence from Worthington, Moore &Jacobs dated July 2, 2009. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/08/2009)

07/10/2009

182 MOTION to Strike 181 Correspondence from D. Caprario by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Responses due by 7/27/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 07/10/2009)

07/20/2009

Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm no longer assigned to case. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 15 of 17

07/21/2009

183 MEMORANDUM. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 7/21/09. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/22/2009)

07/21/2009

184 (FILED IN ERROR) ORDER ADOPTING and APPROVING Judge Grimm's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 179) as therein set forth. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 7/21/09. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 7/28/2009 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 07/22/2009)

07/28/2009

185 ORDER ADOPTING and APPROVING Judge Grimm's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 179) as therein set forth. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 7/21/09. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B)(mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/28/2009)

07/30/2009

186 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Bills of Costs and Motions for Attorneys' Fees by Laura Thomas, Nancy Guzman Responses due by 8/17/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Relman, John) (Entered: 07/30/2009)

08/05/2009

187 JUDGMENT in favor of Claimants against Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 8/3/09. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (interest rate.47) (c/s jb) (Entered: 08/06/2009)

08/10/2009

188 ORDER granting 186 Motion of plaintiffs for Extension of Time to file Bills of Costs and motions for attorneys fees. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 8/7/09. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/11/2009)

08/20/2009

189 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 08/20/2009)

09/10/2009

190 BILL OF COSTS by Nancy Guzman. (Attachments: # 1 GUZMAN supporting memo, # 2 Exhibit Affidavit of Lebau, # 3 bill of costs, # 4 Exhibit depositions, # 5 Exhibit couriers, # 6 Exhibit copying, # 7 Exhibit research)(Lebau, Stephen) (1 paper copy submitted to Chambers on 9/11/09) Modified on 9/11/2009 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). Modified on 9/11/2009 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 09/10/2009)

09/10/2009

191 MOTION to Seal by Laura Thomas Responses due by 9/28/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Relman, John) (Entered: 09/10/2009)

09/14/2009

192 ORDER granting 191 Motion of Laura Thomas for Leave to File Under Seal. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 9/14/09. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/16/2009

193 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Nancy Guzman Responses due by 10/5/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement fee memo, # 2 Affidavit LEBAU, # 3 Affidavit Attorney McGee, # 4 Affidavit Freeman, # 5 Affidavit Desmarais)(Lebau, Stephen) (Entered: 09/16/2009)

09/17/2009

194 NOTICE by Laura Thomas of Filing of Document Under Seal (Relman, John) (Entered: 09/17/2009)

09/17/2009

195 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Laura Thomas Responses due by 10/5/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff−Intervenor Laura Thomas's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Reimbursable Expenses, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1)(Relman, John) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/23/2009: # 4 Sealed Exhibit 2, # 5 Sealed Exhibit 3) (cags, Deputy Clerk). Modified on 9/23/2009 (cags, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 09/17/2009)

09/17/2009

196 BILL OF COSTS by Laura Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Jennifer I. Klar in Support of Plaintiff−Intervenor Laura Thomas's Bill of Costs, # 2 Exhibit 1−6)(Relman, John) (Entered: 09/17/2009)

10/09/2009

197 ORDER directing the Defendant to submit a Response no later than October 13, 2009 as therein set forth. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 10/9/09. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/09/2009)

11/25/2009

198 ORDER granting 193 Motion of Nancy Guzman for Attorney Fees; granting 195 Motion of Laura Thomas for Attorney Fees. Signed by Chief Judge Benson Everett Legg on 11/25/09. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/25/2009)

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 16 of 17

02/18/2010

199 MOTION for Other Relief Seeking the Setting of a Status Conference by Nancy Guzman, Laura Thomas, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Responses due by 3/8/2010 (Relman, John) (Entered: 02/18/2010)

02/22/2010

200 ORDER denying 199 Motion of Plaintiffs for a Status Conference. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 2/22/10. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/22/2010)

06/18/2010

201 Clerk's Order Taxing Cost in amount of $4008.70 in favor of Laura Thomas, against Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. Motion to Review due by 6/28/2010. (jbp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/18/2010)

06/22/2010

202 Clerk's Order of Taxation. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/22/2010)

05/09/2011

203 Joint REQUEST for Writ of Garnishment for 1st Mariner Bank. Responses due by 5/26/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Writ of Garnishment)(Relman, John) (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011

204 Joint REQUEST for Writ of Garnishment for Eastern Savings Bank. Responses due by 5/26/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Writ of Garnishment)(Relman, John) (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011

205 Joint REQUEST for Writ of Garnishment for Howard Bank. Responses due by 5/26/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Writ of Garnishment)(Relman, John) (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011

206 Joint REQUEST for Writ of Garnishment for MTBank. Responses due by 5/26/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Writ of Garnishment)(Relman, John) (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/09/2011

207 Joint REQUEST for Writ of Garnishment for Suntrust Bank. Responses due by 5/26/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Writ of Garnishment)(Relman, John) (Entered: 05/09/2011)

05/17/2011

209 AFFIDAVIT re 208 Writ of Garnishment, Proof of Service for 1st Mariner Bank by Nancy Guzman, Laura Thomas, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Relman, John) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

05/17/2011

210 AFFIDAVIT re 208 Writ of Garnishment, Proof of Service for Eastern Savings Bank by Nancy Guzman, Laura Thomas, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Relman, John) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

05/17/2011

211 AFFIDAVIT re 208 Writ of Garnishment, Proof of Service for Howard Bank by Nancy Guzman, Laura Thomas, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Relman, John) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

05/17/2011

212 AFFIDAVIT re 208 Writ of Garnishment, Proof of Service for MTBank by Nancy Guzman, Laura Thomas, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Relman, John) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

05/17/2011

213 AFFIDAVIT re 208 Writ of Garnishment, Proof of Service for Suntrust Bank by Nancy Guzman, Laura Thomas, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Relman, John) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

05/18/2011

214 ANSWER to Writ of Garnishment and Request for Judgment by 1st Mariner Bank. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(das, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/19/2011)

05/19/2011

215 NOTICE OF RECORDED JUDGMENT in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. (das, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/20/2011)

05/20/2011

216 NOTICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Notice of Proof of Service of Writs on Defendant (Morocco, Maria) (Entered: 05/20/2011)

05/27/2011

217 NOTICE OF RECORDED JUDGMENT in the Circuit Court for Howard County. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/27/2011)

06/07/2011

218 Joint REQUEST for Writ of Garnishment for Wilmington Trust FSB. Responses due by 6/24/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Writ of Garnishment)(Relman, John) (Entered: 06/07/2011)

Case: 1:04-cv-03127-BEL As of: 07/26/2012 10:54 AM EDT 17 of 17

06/08/2011

219 NOTICE of Change of Address and email by attorney Stephen A Glessner. (c/s attorney admissions 6/8/11) (dass, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/08/2011)

06/08/2011

220 MOTION to Quash Garnishment by Worthington, Moore &Jacobs, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Suggestion of Bankruptcy, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(dass, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/08/2011)

06/10/2011

221 ANSWER to Writ of Garnishment by Howard Bank. Objections to Writ Answer due by 7/11/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kirkman, Walter) (Entered: 06/10/2011)

06/10/2011

222 ANSWER to Writ of Garnishment by MTBank. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/10/2011)

06/29/2011

223 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 220 Motion to Quash Garnishment. Signed by Judge Benson Everett Legg on 6/29/2011. (Legg, Benson Everett) (Entered: 06/29/2011)

07/12/2011

224 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Tara K. Ramchandani ( Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0416−3076863.) by Laura Thomas (Relman, John) (Entered: 07/12/2011)

07/18/2011

225 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 224 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for attorney Tara Kolar Ramchandani on behalf of Laura Thomas. Directing attorney Tara Kolar Ramchandani to register on−line for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/attorney/registration.asp. Signed by Clerk on 7/18/11. (nrm, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/18/2011)