IN THE lJNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVA.'lJA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTIJNrI'Y

)

COMMISSIOK,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC.,

)

d/b/a QUALITY rnN BY CHOICE HOTELS, )

)

Defendant

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO,
COMPLAINT JURY TRL'Il DEMA.'lIJED

NATURE OF THE ACTIQt!

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

Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the ba.:;is ofsex, female. and retaliation. and

to provide appropriate relief to Charging Parties ;..!aimah Carmichael, Jennifer Heckrote, and

Kimberly Hicks, and a class of female employees. who were adversely affected by such practices.

As articulated with greater particularity in paragraph 7 and 8 be-low, the Commission aJl-eges that :Ms.

Carmichael, Ms. He-ckrote, and Ms, Hicks, and a class offemale employees were subjected to sexual

harassment by a male co~worker, H. Singh, beginning in Apri12004. Although the Charging Parnes

complained about the sexual harassment to Defendant's General Manager, no remedial action was

taken, and the sexual ha.rassment continued unabated.

In addition, the Commission alleges that because Defendant failed to take remedial action to

stop the sexual harassmem, :Ms. Carmichael was constructively discharged on or about June 4, 2004.

Furthermore, the Commission alleges that Ms. Hcckrote andMs, Hicks were terminated byDefendant

in retaliation for their complaints of sexual harassment on June 4, and June 5, 2004, respectively.

As a result ofthe sexual harassment and retaliation. :h1s. Carmichael, ~1s. Heckrote, and Ms.

", :'
'
\:- ' - "\ :
L I ' -:-,:,

" , ; ,'
---:-
': \ -"- -
1- ',' -1 "

Hicks. as well as other female employees, incurred wage losses, as wen as emotional distress

damages.

JURISDICTIQN AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 US.c. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343

and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to § 706(1) (1) and (3) of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 US.C. § 2000e-5(.f)(1) and (3)" ("Title VII") and Section

102 of the Civil Right' Act of 1991,42 C.S.C. § 1981A.

2. The employment pr<l(..1:ices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed

within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofPenn..:;yJvania.

PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff; the Equal Employment OpportuuityCommission{the "Commissionh ), is the

agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, iIlterpretation and

enforcement ofTitle VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(0(1) and (3)

ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(1) (I) and (3).

4. At all relevant times. Defendant has continuously been and is now a Pennsylvania

Corporation doing business in the State of Pennsylvania. and the Cjty of Pottstown, and has

continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuouslybeen anemployer engaged

in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSections 701(b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42
u.s.c. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

- - .. ~ ... -

Page -2-

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6, More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Parties Carmichael, Heckrote and Hicks filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7, Since at least Apri12004, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful emplo)roent practices at its Pottstown, Pennsylvania facility in violation ofSection 703(a)(I) and 704(1) ofTitie VII, 42 U.s.c. § 2000e-2(a)(1), by subjecting the Charging Panies and a class offemale employees to a sexually hostile work envirorunent, and to retaliation. The unlawful employment practices included. hut are not limited to, the following: (a) On November 251 2002, NaitTh1h Cannic-hael was hired by Defendant's predecessor, Travelodge. as a Front Desk Clerk, At an relevant times. Ms, Carmichael's pertormance was satisfactory. (b) Beginning in May 2004, soon after Defundant took over l11lU1agement of the hotel. Ms. Carmichael began being subjected to sexual harassment in the form of constant unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome touching, and offensive sexual comments by a male cQ-worker, Harcharan Singh, a relative of Defendant's owner who lived at the hotel. The harassment included. but was not limited to, blocking her way so that Ms. Cannichael would have to rub against his body when leaving a room, forcing her to reach over his lap to reach the cashier area, telling her he was "so hungry, he wanted to eat her"", asking how frequently she had sex, and asking ifwhen she was in bed, anyone "sucked her lips." (c) Although Ms. Carmichael complained about the sexual harassment to Defendant's
Page -3-

,, .

.' . 1 ;.'
," , ] i

,

.i,,.

:
~ ,

.: i '

'Ii.,-

;
,

} !'

.r ;
·· 'j ).' . · 1 (
, :" ,-
-)
1 :
1 "

; \'

'.

General Manager, no remedial action was taken to stop the harassment. In respons,e to bercomplaints,
the General Manager advised Ms. Carmichael that H. Singh was "doing his job", and told her to "tell the girls to just ignore him because that's the way he is,"
(d) In her capacity as Front Desk Clerk, Ms. Cannichael received complaints from other female staff that they were also being subjected to unwelcome sexual advances and offensive sexual comments by H. Singh, which she also oonununicated to Defendant's General Manager.
(e) On June 4, 2004, Charging Party Cannichael filed a police report with the Pottstown Police Department alleging that H. Singh had sexually harassed her, as well as other female employee.~" On that date, Ms, Carmichael was forced to resign from her employment because she could no longer tolerate the sexual harassment
(f) Oll April 20, 2004, Jennifer Heckrote was hired by Defendant as a Housekeeper. At all relevant times, Ms. Heckmte's performance "vas satisfactory.
(g) Immediately after her hire, Ms. Hcckrote began bejng subjected to sexual harassment hy H. Singh in the fonn of unwelcome sexual advances, including. but not limited to, attempting to kiss her. exposing his chest hair to her and asking her to feel it. asking about her sexual activities with her boyfriend, telling her '''how sexual things were in India", his country oforigin, and asking repeatedly if she found any pornographic materials when cleaning the hotel rooms.
(h) Although Ms. Heckrote complalned to Defendant's General Manager and Defendant's housekeeping Department Supervisor about the sexual har.wsment by H. Singh, no remedial action was taken by Defendant.
(i) On May 28,2005, after H. Singh again made sexual advances and comments to her, ~1s. Heckrote filed a police report with the Pottstown Police Department alleging that H. Singh had
Page-4-
I I
I
I

subjected her and orner female employees to sexual harassment. On that date as well, Ms. Heckrote advised Defendant's General Manager that ifH. Singh continued to sexually harass her. she would retain an attorney to protect her rights.
Ul On June 4,2003, when Ms. Heckrote called in to obtain heT schedule, she was advised by
Defendanfs General Manager that she was fired, (h) On May 2, 2004, Kimberly Hicks was hired by Defendant as a Housekeeper. At all
relevant times, Ms. Hicks' perfonnance was satisfactory.
(i) Beginning on May 20, 2004, Ms. Hicks began being subjected to sexual harassment by
H, Singh, incJuding~ but not limited to, making comments about her buttocks while rubbing his crotch, telling her his body was "sore" and he needed someone to "rub it", blocking her way when she was attempting to leave a room so that she would have to rub against his body to leave, and asking what the Housekeeping Department did with condoms left behind in any hotel rooms by guests.
0) Although Ms. Hicks complained aDout the sexual harassment to Defendant's General
Manager, no remedial action was taken.
(k) On June 4, 2004, 1\1,. Hicks filed a police report with the Pottstown Police Department, alleging that she and other female empJoyees were subjected to sexual harassment by H. Singh, and that Defendant had failed to take any remedial action. On that date, Ms. Hicks advised Defendant's General YJanager that she had filed a police report that day about the sexual harassment.
(I) On June 5, 2004, Ms. Hicks was advised by Defendant's General Manager that she was fired.
(h) Both Ms. Heckrote and Ms. Hicks were tenTIinated in retaliation for their complaints of
Page ·s-

,

. _ - ... ~

.• --~~

-.-...

.

I

sexual harassment. (i) Upon infonnation and belie!; other female employees of Defendant were also
subjected to sexual harassment by H. Singh during their employment, of which Defendant had
knowledge, and failed to take any action to eliminate. 8. The effect ofthe practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to' deprive the
Charging Parties and other female class members ofequal employment opportunities and otheI"iVise adversely affect their status as employees because oftheir sex and retaliation.
9, The lll1lawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7> above, were
intentionaL
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Naimah Carmichael, Jennifer Heckrote, Kimberly Hicks and a class of female employees"
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
\\tberefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors. assigns. and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment and retaliation, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex or retaliation. B, Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs
tree which provide equal employment opportunities for women, which provide for an harassment
work environment, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
Page·(jI
l

C. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out anti-discrimination, anti- sexual harassment policies and complaint procedures, and anti-retaliation policies,
D. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out complaint procedures which encourage employees to come forward with complaints regarding violations of its poiicies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
E. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out a training program which shall promote supervisor accountability imposing on all managers and supervisory perso1ll1cl a duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure compliance with policies on non-discrimination and anti~ harassment; and requiring all managers and supervisors to report any jncidents and/or complaints of harassment and/or retaliation of which they become aware to the department charged with handling such complaints,
F. Order Defendant Employer to make \",hole Naimah Carmichael, Jennifer Heckrote, Kimberly Hicks and a class of female employees by provi.ding appropriate back pay and front pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial,. and other affinnative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
G. Order Defendant Employer to make wMle Naimah Carmichael, Jennifer Heckrote, Kimberly Hicks and a class of female employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above,
including, but not limited to out-of~pocket losses. in amounts to be detennilled at trial. H. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Nairnah Cannichael, Jennifer Heckrote,
Kimberly Hicks and a class offemale employees by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary lossesresuJting from the unlawful practices complained ofin paragraph 7 above, including
Page -7~

pain and suffering! bmniliation, embarrassment. loss of1ife's enjoyment and pleasures, depression, anxiety and inconvenience, in amoWlts to be determined at trial.
l. Order Defendant Employer to pay Naimah Carmichael, Jennifer Heckrote, Kimberly Hicks and a class: of female employees punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in pw-agraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial
J. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
interest K. Award the Commission its costs oftbis action.
Page-8-

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests aJUI)' tria1 on an questions offact raised by jts complaint
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendol,n Young Reams Associate General Cooosei Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Washington, D.c' 20507
~J'M,
JIA,e:QiNEH. McNAIR R:egional Attorney
t - /M
Trial Attorney EEOC 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2619
Page-9-

 
 Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 1 of 15

Joseph A. Hirsch, Esq. Atty. Id. No. 66640 HIRSCH & HIRSCH 1 E. Wynnewood Road Suite 110 Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096 Telephone (610) 645-9222

Attorney for Intervener Naimah N. Carmichael

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION

:

Plaintiff

:

and

:

:

KIMBERLY E. HICKS,

:

NAIMAH N. CARMICHAEL, and

:

JENNIFER HECKROTE

:

:

Interveners

:

:

V.

:

:

MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC., D/B/A :

QUALITY INN BY CHOICE HOTELS

:

:

Defendant

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-6693
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT OF INTERVENER NAIMAH N. CARMICHAEL Intervener Naimah N. Carmichael files this intervention complaint under Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as permitted under Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended)(42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.)(“Title VII”), and in support thereof alleges as follows:
1. Intervener Naimah N. Carmichael is an adult individual, residing at 433 Timberlake Road, Upper Darby, PA 19082, which is
1

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 2 of 15
within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Intervener Carmichael files this action to seek redress for Defendant’s discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended)(42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.)(“Title VII”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”).
2. Defendant, Maharaja Hospitality, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principle place of business at 61 W. King Street, Pottstown, PA 19464.
2.1. Defendant formerly did business as Travel Lodge at 61 W. King Street, Pottstown, PA 19464.
2.2. Defendant currently does business as Quality Inn of Pottstown at 61 W. King Street, Pottstown, PA 19464
3. At all times relevant, Defendant acted by and through its agents, servants and employees.
4. On information and belief, at all times relevant, Mr. Harcharan Singh was a principal and/or supervisory employee of Defendant.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (as amended), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 as well as this Court's power to hear related state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
6. At all times relevant, Defendant was an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et
2

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 3 of 15
seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
7. Intervener Carmichael has duly complied with the requirements of Title VII (as amended), and the PHRA, and has performed any and all conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action.
7.1. Intervener Carmichael timely filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on or about August 30, 2004, alleging discrimination based on sex, and retaliation against her for engaging in protected conduct under Title VII and the PHRA.
7.2. Intervener Carmichael’s charge was duly cross-filed with the PHRC.
7.3. Intervener Carmichael has timely filed this intervention complaint pursuant to Section 706(f) of Title VII.
8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that i) the Defendant resides within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ii) the events and/or omissions giving rise to Intervener Carmichael’ claims occurred within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and iii) Intervener Carmichael resides within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
FACTS OF THE CASE
9. Ms. Carmichael was hired by Defendant’s predecessor, Travel Lodge, as a Front Desk Clerk on or about November 25, 2002. Ms. Carmichael remained employed in this position until her constructive discharge on or about June 4, 2004.
10. Throughout the term of her employment with Defendant, Ms. Carmichael performed her work to the satisfaction of her employer.
3

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 4 of 15

Sexual Harassment

11. Beginning in or about May 2004, after defendant took over

management of the hotel, and continuing through the date of her

constructive discharge, Ms. Carmichael was subjected to

discrimination on the basis of her sex. The discrimination was

in the form of unwanted sexual harassment that included, without

limitation, the following:

11.1.

Mr. Harcharan Singh (hereinafter “Mr. H. Singh”)

would routinely block the way when Ms. Carmichael needed to move

so that she would have to rub against him as she entered/exited

the room.

11.2.

Mr. H. Singh would not move aside to allow Ms.

Carmichael to access the cash register, because he wanted her to

reach across his lap when she would have to transact business.

11.3.

On one occasion Mr. Singh asked Ms. Carmichael out

for a drink and she declined.

11.4.

Mr. H. Singh asked Ms. Carmichael what aged man

she was interested in and whether she would be interested in him.

Ms. Carmichael replied that she was not looking.

11.5.

Mr. H. Singh asked Ms. Carmichael when she last

had sex and told her that if it had been 2 or 3 months that was

too long. Ms. Carmichael replied that it was not his business.

11.6.

Mr. H. Singh asked Ms. Carmichael while she was

applying Vaseline to her lips if she let anyone suck her lips

while she was in bed.

11.7.

Mr. H. Singh told Ms. Carmichael that he was so

hungry he could eat her.

11.8.

Mr. H. Singh told Ms. Carmichael that his mind was

telling him to do one thing while his hands were telling him to

do another.

4

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 5 of 15

12. At or about the same time as Ms. Carmichael was being

subjected to the foregoing harassment, Ms. Carmichael was aware

that Mr. H. Singh was subjecting the other female staff members

to sexual harassment including, without limitation, the

following:

12.1.

Requesting only Jennifer, one of the female house

keepers, to clean his room (Mr. Singh lived at the Travel Lodge);

12.2.

Unbuttoning his shirt in front of co-worker Sonia;

12.3.

Attempting to kiss co-worker Jennifer Heckrote in

one of the hotel rooms she was cleaning during the week of April

20, 2004;

12.4.

Approaching co-worker Jennifer Heckrote while she

was cleaning one of the hotel rooms and begging her to let him

taste her;

12.5.

Asking co-worker Jennifer Heckrote if her

boyfriend hurt her during sex;

12.6.

Telling co-worker Jennifer Heckrote that he could

be her boyfriend and that it was OK to cheat on her existing

boyfriend;

12.7.

Telling co-worker Jennifer Heckrote that

everything is sexual in India (his country of origin), and

telling her that he could take her there to show her how sexual

everything is;

12.8.

Asking co-worker Jennifer Heckrote to rub his

shoulders because he needed a massage.

12.9.

Mr. H. Singh would repeatedly come into the rooms

that Ms. Kimberly Hicks was cleaning and tell her how sore his

body was and how he needed someone to rub it.

12.10. Mr. H.Singh would follow Ms. Hicks (and other

female employees) around to the bed rooms where she was cleaning

and would sing to her “love me or leave me alone” with his hands

in the air and leaning against the door of the hotel room.

5

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 6 of 15
12.11. Mr. H. Singh would walk close behind Ms. Hicks and say “Oh my gosh” while staring at her buttocks and rubbing his pants.
12.12. While Ms. Hicks would be bent over the bath tubs cleaning Mr. H. Singh would routinely come into the bathroom and watch Ms. Hicks while she cleaned.
12.13. Mr. H. Singh would routinely block the doorways to the rooms Ms. Hicks was assigned to clean and refuse to move out of the way when she wanted to enter/exit so that she would have to rub against him as she entered/exited the room.
12.14. Mr. H. Singh would repeatedly ask Ms. Hicks how her boyfriend made her feel and if he made her feel good.
12.15. Mr. H. Singh would repeatedly comment to Ms. Hicks about the condoms found in the hotel rooms after guests would leave and ask her “what do they do with all of those condoms?”
12.16. On one occasion when whipped cream was found in one of the hotel rooms after the guests departed, Mr. H. Singh repeatedly asked Ms. Hicks if she knew what the guests had been doing with strawberries and whipped cream. Ms. Hicks stated she did not know.
12.17. On one occasion when Ms. Hicks had developed a rash (apparently from cleaning fluids), Mr. H. Singh asked to see her hands. When she showed him her hands, he began to massage them. Ms. Hicks quickly withdrew her hands.
13. Ms. Carmichael was aware of Mr. H. Singh’s conduct toward her co-workers as set forth above.
14. Ms. Carmichael and her co-workers had reported Mr. H. Singh’s conduct to management, including, without limitation, immediate supervisor Ms. Sylvia Missimer, Defendant’s General Manager, and owner/co-owner Kasouri Singh but Defendant failed to
6

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 7 of 15
take prompt or appropriate action to end the harassment.
15. On Friday June 4, 2004, Ms. Carmichael and her co-workers decided that they could no longer tolerate Mr. H. Singh’s sexually harassing behavior, and went to the Pottstown Police Department to report the harassment. Ms. Missimer told Ms. Carmichael that Mr. H. Singh was just doing his job, and that she should “tell the girls to just ignore him because that’s the way he is.”
16. On June 4, 2004, Ms. Carmichael was forced to resign from her employment because she was no longer able to tolerate the sexual harassment.
COUNT I (Discrimination in Violation of Title VII)
17. Intervener Carmichael incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 above.
18. Defendant discriminated against Ms. Carmichael with respect to the terms, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended).
19. Defendant also constructively discharged Ms. Carmichael without cause, on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended).
20. The acts and omissions of Defendant as set forth above were
7

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 8 of 15
discriminatory, offensive, intimidating and unwelcome, created a hostile and offensive work environment, and imposed intolerable working conditions on Ms. Carmichael.
21. Defendant knew and/or should have known of the sexual harassment of Ms. Carmichael, and failed to take any prompt or effective action to remedy the retaliation, thereby furthering the harassment.
22. The sexual harassment of Ms. Carmichael was severe and pervasive, altered the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment, and created a hostile working environment, all in violation of Ms. Carmichael’s civil rights.
23. As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Carmichael has suffered damages including, without limitation, embarrassment, humiliation, fear, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of self esteem, lost wages and benefits, and financial hardship.
24. Defendant is liable to Ms. Carmichael for any and all lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
25. Additionally, Defendant acted willfully, intentionally, maliciously and/or with reckless indifference to Ms. Carmichael’s rights in denying her equal employment opportunities and otherwise discriminating against her on the basis of her sex, and for such conduct, Defendant is liable to Ms. Carmichael for compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. §1981a.
8

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 9 of 15
WHEREFORE, Intervener Naimah N. Carmichael, respectfully demands Judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Maharaja Hospitality, Inc., as follows:
1. Providing such relief as would place her in the position she would have been in absent Defendant’s unlawful, discriminatory conduct, and making her whole;
2. Prohibiting Defendant from continuing to engage in discriminatory conduct in violation of Title VII;
3. Awarding her back pay, front pay, overtime, other lost wages and benefits, and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00;
4. Awarding her punitive and/or liquidated damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant for its willful, deliberate, reckless and/or outrageous conduct, and to deter Defendant from similar civil rights violations in the future;
5. Awarding her attorneys fees, costs, pre-judgment interest, and post judgment interest; and,
6. Awarding such other legal and/or equitable relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
COUNT II (Discrimination in Violation of the PHRA)
26. Intervener Carmichael incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 25 above.
27. At all times relevant, Defendant was an "employer" within the meaning of 43 Pa.C.S.A. § 951, et seq.
28. Defendant discriminated against Ms. Carmichael with respect
9

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 10 of 15
to the terms, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of her sex, in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
29. Defendant also discharged Ms. Carmichael without cause, on the basis of her sex, in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
30. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Ms. Carmichael is entitled to compensation for any and all lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, pre and post judgment interest and costs.
WHEREFORE, Intervener Naimah N. Carmichael, respectfully demands Judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Maharaja Hospitality, Inc., as follows:
1. Providing such relief as would place her in the position she would have been in absent Defendant’s unlawful, discriminatory conduct, and making her whole;
2. Prohibiting Defendant from continuing to engage in discriminatory and retaliatory conduct in violation of the PHRA.
3. Awarding her back pay, front pay, overtime, other lost wages and benefits, and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00;
4. Awarding her attorneys fees, costs, pre-judgment interest, and post judgment interest; and,
5. Awarding such other legal and/or equitable relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
10

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 11 of 15
COUNT III (Unlawful Retaliation)
31. Intervener Carmichael incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 above.
32. Under Title VII and the PHRA, it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee because she has “opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice” thereunder.
33. By addressing her concerns to management about the Defendant’s discriminatory employment practices, and reporting the sexual harassment to the Pottstown Police, the Ms. Carmichael opposed unlawful discrimination.
34. Once Ms. Carmichael’s opposition to Defendant’s unlawful discrimination became known to Defendant, Defendant constructively terminated her employment.
35. The Defendant constructively terminated Ms. Carmichael’s employment in retaliation for Ms. Carmichael’s opposing unlawful discrimination and otherwise engaging in activity protected under Title VII and the PHRA, and the Defendant’s alleged bases therefor were pretextual.
36. Defendant’s unlawful conduct has violated and continues to violate Ms. Carmichael’s civil rights as guaranteed by law.
37. Defendant’s retaliatory acts were and continue to be willful and intentional.
38. Defendant has engaged in the above retaliatory acts with
11

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 12 of 15
malice, and/or with reckless indifference to Ms. Carmichael’s rights.
39. As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Carmichael has suffered damages including, without limitation, embarrassment, humiliation, fear, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of self esteem, illness, lost wages and benefits, and financial hardship.
40. Defendant is liable to Ms. Carmichael for any and all lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
WHEREFORE, Intervener Naimah N. Carmichael, respectfully demands Judgment in her favor and against Defendant as follows:
1. Providing such relief as would place her in the position she would have been in absent Defendant’s unlawful, discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, and making her whole;
2. Prohibiting Defendant from continuing to engage in discriminatory and retaliatory conduct in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.
3. Awarding her back pay, front pay, overtime, other lost wages and benefits, and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00;
4. Awarding her punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant for its willful, deliberate, reckless and/or outrageous conduct, and to deter Defendant from similar civil rights violations in the future.
5. Awarding her attorneys fees, costs, pre-judgment interest, and post judgment interest; and,
12

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 13 of 15 6. Awarding such other legal and/or equitable relief as
this Court deems just and appropriate.
HIRSCH & HIRSCH Date: February 10, 2006 BY:
JOSEPH A. HIRSCH, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID #66640 1 E. Wynnewood Road Suite 110 Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096 (610) 645-9222 Attorney for Intervener Carmichael
13

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 14 of 15

Joseph A. Hirsch, Esq. Atty. Id. No. 66640 HIRSCH & HIRSCH 1 E. Wynnewood Road Suite 110 Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096 Telephone (610) 645-9222

Attorney for Intervener Naimah N. Carmichael

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION

:

Plaintiff

:

and

:

:

KIMBERLY E. HICKS,

:

NAIMAH N. CARMICHAEL, and

:

JENNIFER HECKROTE

:

:

Interveners

:

:

V.

:

:

MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC., D/B/A :

QUALITY INN BY CHOICE HOTELS

:

:

Defendant

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-6693
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Intervene upon the following via first class mail, postage prepaid:

Marisol Ramos, Esq. EEOC 21 S. 5th Street Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106

1

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 12 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 15 of 15
Patrick M. McHugh, Esq. 8040 Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 214 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19142 Attorney for Maharaja Hospitality, Inc.

Date: February 10, 2006

JOSEPH A. HIRSCH, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID #66640 1 E. Wynnewood Road, Suite 110 Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096 (610) 645-9222 Attorney for Intervener Carmichael

2

 
 Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 1 of 13

Joseph A. Hirsch, Esq. Atty. Id. No. 66640 HIRSCH & HIRSCH 1 E. Wynnewood Road Suite 110 Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096 Telephone (610) 645-9222

Attorney for Intervener Jennifer Heckrote

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION

:

Plaintiff

:

and

:

:

KIMBERLY E. HICKS,

:

NAIMAH N. CARMICHAEL, and

:

JENNIFER HECKROTE

:

:

Interveners

:

:

V.

:

:

MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC., D/B/A :

QUALITY INN BY CHOICE HOTELS

:

:

Defendant

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-6693
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT OF INTERVENER JENNIFER HECKROTE Intervener Jennifer Heckrote files this intervention complaint under Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as permitted under Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended)(42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.)(“Title VII”), and in support thereof alleges as follows:
1. Intervener Jennifer Heckrote is an adult individual, residing at 121 West Sixth Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464,
1

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 2 of 13
which is within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Intervener Heckrote files this action to seek redress for Defendant’s discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended)(42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.)(“Title VII”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”).
2. Defendant, Maharaja Hospitality, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principle place of business at 61 W. King Street, Pottstown, PA 19464.
2.1. Defendant formerly did business as Travel Lodge at 61 W. King Street, Pottstown, PA 19464.
2.2. Defendant currently does business as Quality Inn of Pottstown at 61 W. King Street, Pottstown, PA 19464
3. At all times relevant, Defendant acted by and through its agents, servants and employees.
4. On information and belief, at all times relevant, Mr. Harcharan Singh was a principal and/or supervisory employee of Defendant.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (as amended), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 as well as this Court's power to hear related state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
6. At all times relevant, Defendant was an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et
2

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 3 of 13
seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
7. Intervener Heckrote has duly complied with the requirements of Title VII (as amended), and the PHRA, and has performed any and all conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action.
7.1. Intervener Heckrote timely filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on or about August 30, 2004, alleging discrimination based on sex, and retaliation against her for engaging in protected conduct under Title VII and the PHRA.
7.2. Intervener Heckrote’s charge was duly cross-filed with the PHRC.
7.3. Intervener Heckrote has timely filed this intervention complaint pursuant to Section 706(f) of Title VII.
8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that i) the Defendant resides within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ii) the events and/or omissions giving rise to Intervener Heckrote’s claims occurred within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and iii) Intervener Heckrote resides within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
FACTS OF THE CASE
9. Ms. Heckrote was employed by Defendant as a member of the housekeeping staff from on or about April 20, 2004 until her unlawful termination on or about June 4, 2004.
10. Throughout the term of her employment with Defendant, Ms. Heckrote performed her work to the satisfaction of her employer.
3

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 4 of 13

Sexual Harassment

11. Beginning in or about April 2004 and continuing through the

date of her termination, Ms. Heckrote was subjected to

discrimination on the basis of her sex. The discrimination was

in the form of unwanted sexual harassment that included, without

limitation, the following:

11.1.

Unwelcome advances by Mr. Harcharan Singh

(hereinafter Ms. H. Singh).

11.2.

Mr. H. Singh would make comments about, inter

alia, how hairy his body was and how Indian men such as he were

so sexual. Ms. Heckrote would tell Mr. Singh to leave her alone

and stop.

11.3.

Mr. H. Singh exposed his chest and back to Ms.

Heckrote twice and told her how soft his body hair was. Ms.

Heckrote would tell Mr. Singh to leave her alone and stop.

11.4.

During the week of April 20, 2004, Mr. H. Singh

attempted to kiss Ms. Heckrote in one of the hotel rooms she was

cleaning.

11.5.

Mr. H. Singh approached Ms. Heckrote while she was

cleaning one of the hotel rooms and begged her to let him taste

her.

11.6.

Mr. H. Singh asked Ms. Heckrote if she had sex

with her boyfriend and if he hurt her during sex.

11.7.

Mr. H. Singh told Ms. Heckrote that he could be

her boyfriend and that it was OK to cheat on her existing

boyfriend.

11.8.

Mr. H. Singh told Ms. Heckrote that everything is

sexual in India (his country of origin), and told her that he

could take her there to show her how sexual everything is.

11.9.

Mr. H. Singh asked Ms. Heckrote to massage his

back because it was sore.

4

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 5 of 13
11.10. Again on May 28, 2004, Mr. H. Singh tried to kiss Ms. Heckrote, by placing his hands on her face and attempting to pull her toward him. Ms. Heckrote pulled away from Mr. H. Singh, and told him to stop. Upon leaving work, she contacted the police.
11.11. On June 4, 2004, Mr. H. Singh again followed Ms. Heckrote around, offering to help her and upon finding her in the stock room, asked her if she had found any pornographic magazines left in the rooms for him to look at.
12. At or about the same time as Ms. Heckrote was being subjected to the foregoing harassment, Ms. Heckrote was aware that Mr. H. Singh was subjecting the other female house keeping staff members to sexual harassment.
13. Ms. Heckrote reported Mr. H. Singh’s conduct to management, including, without limitation, immediate supervisor Ms. Sylvia Missimer, Defendant’s General Manager, but Defendant failed to take prompt or appropriate action to end the harassment.
14. On Friday June 4, 2004, Ms. Heckrote and her co-workers decided that they could no longer tolerate Mr. H. Singh’s sexually harassing behavior, and went to the Pottstown Police Department to report the harassment.
15. Later on June 4, 2004 and on the morning of June 5, 2004, Ms. Heckrote called General Manager Sylvia Missimer and told her that Mr. H. Singh had continued to harass her and that she knew her civil rights and that she would get a lawyer if necessary. On June 5, 2004, Ms. Missimer informed Ms. Heckrote that she was not to come to work that day. Later that day, Ms. Heckrote learned that she was fired.
5

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 6 of 13
16. Ms. Heckrote was fired in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment.
COUNT I (Discrimination in Violation of Title VII)
17. Intervener Heckrote incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 17 above.
18. Defendant discriminated against Ms. Heckrote with respect to the terms, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended).
19. Defendant also discharged Ms. Heckrote without cause, on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended).
20. The acts and omissions of Defendant as set forth above were discriminatory, offensive, intimidating and unwelcome, created a hostile and offensive work environment, and imposed intolerable working conditions on Ms. Heckrote.
21. Defendant knew and/or should have known of the sexual harassment of Ms. Heckrote, and failed to take any prompt or effective action to remedy the retaliation, thereby furthering the harassment.
22. The sexual harassment of Ms. Heckrote was severe and pervasive, altered the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment, and created a hostile working environment, all in violation of Ms. Heckrote’s civil rights.
6

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 7 of 13
23. As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Heckrote has suffered damages including, without limitation, embarrassment, humiliation, fear, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of self esteem, lost wages and benefits, and financial hardship.
24. Defendant is liable to Ms. Heckrote for any and all lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
25. Additionally, Defendant acted willfully, intentionally, maliciously and/or with reckless indifference to Ms. Heckrote’s rights in denying her equal employment opportunities and otherwise discriminating against her on the basis of her sex, and for such conduct, Defendant is liable to Ms. Heckrote for compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. §1981a.
WHEREFORE, Intervener Jennifer Heckrote, respectfully demands Judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Maharaja Hospitality, Inc., as follows:
1. Providing such relief as would place her in the position she would have been in absent Defendant’s unlawful, discriminatory conduct, and making her whole;
2. Prohibiting Defendant from continuing to engage in discriminatory conduct in violation of Title VII;
3. Awarding her back pay, front pay, overtime, other lost wages and benefits, and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00;
4. Awarding her punitive and/or liquidated damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant for its willful, deliberate, reckless and/or outrageous conduct, and to deter
7

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 8 of 13
Defendant from similar civil rights violations in the future; 5. Awarding her attorneys fees, costs, pre-judgment
interest, and post judgment interest; and, 6. Awarding such other legal and/or equitable relief as
this Court deems just and appropriate.
COUNT II (Discrimination in Violation of the PHRA)
26. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 26 above.
27. At all times relevant, Defendant was an "employer" within the meaning of 43 Pa.C.S.A. § 951, et seq.
28. Defendant discriminated against Ms. Heckrote with respect to the terms, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of her sex, in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
29. Defendant also discharged Ms. Heckrote without cause, on the basis of her sex, in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
30. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Ms. Heckrote is entitled to compensation for any and all lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, pre and post judgment interest and costs.
WHEREFORE, Intervener Jennifer Heckrote, respectfully demands Judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Maharaja Hospitality, Inc., as follows:
1. Providing such relief as would place her in the
8

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 9 of 13
position she would have been in absent Defendant’s unlawful, discriminatory conduct, and making her whole;
2. Prohibiting Defendant from continuing to engage in discriminatory and retaliatory conduct in violation of the PHRA.
3. Awarding her back pay, front pay, overtime, other lost wages and benefits, and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00;
4. Awarding her attorneys fees, costs, pre-judgment interest, and post judgment interest; and,
5. Awarding such other legal and/or equitable relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
COUNT III (Unlawful Retaliation)
31. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 above.
32. Under Title VII and the PHRA, it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee because she has “opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice” thereunder.
33. By addressing her concerns to management about the Defendant’s discriminatory employment practices, and reporting the sexual harassment to the Pottstown Police, Ms. Heckrote opposed unlawful discrimination.
34. Once Ms. Heckrote’ opposition to Defendant’s unlawful discrimination became known to Defendant, Defendant terminated her employment.
9

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 10 of 13
35. The Defendant terminated Ms. Heckrote’ employment in retaliation for Ms. Heckrote’ opposing unlawful discrimination and otherwise engaging in activity protected under Title VII and the PHRA, and the Defendant’s alleged bases therefor were pretextual.
36. Defendant’s unlawful conduct has violated and continues to violate Ms. Heckrote’ civil rights as guaranteed by law.
37. Defendant’s retaliatory acts were and continue to be willful and intentional.
38. Defendant has engaged in the above retaliatory acts with malice, and/or with reckless indifference to Ms. Heckrote’ rights.
39. As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Heckrote has suffered damages including, without limitation, embarrassment, humiliation, fear, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of self esteem, illness, lost wages and benefits, and financial hardship.
40. Defendant is liable to Ms. Heckrote for any and all lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
WHEREFORE, Intervener Jennifer Heckrote, respectfully demands Judgment in her favor and against Defendant as follows:
1. Providing such relief as would place her in the position she would have been in absent Defendant’s unlawful,
10

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 11 of 13
discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, and making her whole; 2. Prohibiting Defendant from continuing to engage in
discriminatory and retaliatory conduct in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.
3. Awarding her back pay, front pay, overtime, other lost wages and benefits, and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00;
4. Awarding her punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant for its willful, deliberate, reckless and/or outrageous conduct, and to deter Defendant from similar civil rights violations in the future.
5. Awarding her attorneys fees, costs, pre-judgment interest, and post judgment interest; and,
6. Awarding such other legal and/or equitable relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
HIRSCH & HIRSCH Date: February 10, 2006 BY:
JOSEPH A. HIRSCH, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID #66640 1 E. Wynnewood Road Suite 110 Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096 (610) 645-9222 Attorney for Intervener Heckrote
11

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 12 of 13

Joseph A. Hirsch, Esq. Atty. Id. No. 66640 HIRSCH & HIRSCH 1 E. Wynnewood Road Suite 110 Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096 Telephone (610) 645-9222

Attorney for Intervener Jennifer Heckrote

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION

:

Plaintiff

:

and

:

:

KIMBERLY E. HICKS,

:

NAIMAH N. CARMICHAEL, and

:

JENNIFER HECKROTE

:

:

Interveners

:

:

V.

:

:

MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC., D/B/A :

QUALITY INN BY CHOICE HOTELS

:

:

Defendant

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-6693
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Intervene upon the following via first class mail, postage prepaid:

Marisol Ramos, Esq. EEOC 21 S. 5th Street Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106

1

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 11 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 13 of 13
Patrick M. McHugh, Esq. 8040 Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 214 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19142 Attorney for Maharaja Hospitality, Inc.

Date: February 10, 2006

JOSEPH A. HIRSCH, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID #66640 1 E. Wynnewood Road, Suite 110 Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096 (610) 645-9222 Attorney for Intervener Heckrote

2

 
 Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 1 of 14

Joseph A. Hirsch, Esq. Atty. Id. No. 66640 HIRSCH & HIRSCH 1 E. Wynnewood Road Suite 110 Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096 Telephone (610) 645-9222

Attorney for Intervener Kimberly E. Hicks

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION

:

Plaintiff

:

and

:

:

KIMBERLY E. HICKS,

:

NAIMAH N. CARMICHAEL, and

:

JENNIFER HECKROTE

:

:

Interveners

:

:

V.

:

:

MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC., D/B/A :

QUALITY INN BY CHOICE HOTELS

:

:

Defendant

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-6693
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT OF INTERVENER KIMBERLY E. HICKS Intervener Kimberly E. Hicks files this intervention complaint under Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as permitted under Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended)(42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.)(“Title VII”), and in support thereof alleges as follows:
1. Intervener Kimberly E. Hicks is an adult individual, residing at 480 W. King Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464, which is within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Intervener
1

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 2 of 14
Hicks files this action to seek redress for Defendant’s discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended)(42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.)(“Title VII”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”).
2. Defendant, Maharaja Hospitality, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principle place of business at 61 W. King Street, Pottstown, PA 19464.
2.1. Defendant formerly did business as Travel Lodge at 61 W. King Street, Pottstown, PA 19464.
2.2. Defendant currently does business as Quality Inn of Pottstown at 61 W. King Street, Pottstown, PA 19464
3. At all times relevant, Defendant acted by and through its agents, servants and employees.
4. On information and belief, at all times relevant, Mr. Harcharan Singh was a principal and/or supervisory employee of Defendant.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (as amended), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 as well as this Court's power to hear related state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
6. At all times relevant, Defendant was an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et
2

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 3 of 14
seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
7. Intervener Hicks has duly complied with the requirements of Title VII (as amended), and the PHRA, and has performed any and all conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action.
7.1. Intervener Hicks timely filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on or about August 30, 2004, alleging discrimination based on sex, and retaliation against her for engaging in protected conduct under Title VII and the PHRA.
7.2. Intervener Hicks’ charge was duly cross-filed with the PHRC.
7.3. Intervener Hicks has timely filed this intervention complaint pursuant to Section 706(f) of Title VII.
8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that i) the Defendant resides within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ii) the events and/or omissions giving rise to Intervener Hicks’ claims occurred within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and iii) Intervener Hicks resides within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
FACTS OF THE CASE
9. Ms. Hicks was employed by Defendant as a member of the housekeeping staff from on or about May 2, 2004 until her unlawful termination on or about June 5, 2004.
10. Throughout the term of her employment with Defendant, Ms. Hicks performed her work to the satisfaction of her employer.
Sexual Harassment
3

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 4 of 14

11. Beginning on or about May 20, 2004 and continuing through

the date of her termination, Ms. Hicks was subjected to

discrimination on the basis of her sex. The discrimination was

in the form of unwanted sexual harassment that included, without

limitation, the following:

11.1.

Mr. Harcharan Singh (hereinafter “Mr. H. Singh”)

would repeatedly come into the rooms that Ms. Hicks was cleaning

and tell her how sore his body was and how he needed someone to

rub it.

11.2.

Mr. H.Singh would follow Ms. Hicks (and other

female employees) around to the bed rooms where she was cleaning

and would sing to her “love me or leave me alone” with his hands

in the air and leaning against the door of the hotel room.

11.3.

Mr. H. Singh would walk close behind Ms. Hicks and

say “Oh my gosh” while staring at her buttocks and rubbing his

pants.

11.4.

While Ms. Hicks would be bent over the bath tubs

cleaning Mr. H. Singh would routinely come into the bathroom and

watch Ms. Hicks while she cleaned.

11.5.

Mr. H. Singh would routinely block the doorways to

the rooms Ms. Hicks was assigned to clean and refuse to move out

of the way when she wanted to enter/exit so that she would have

to rub against him as she entered/exited the room.

11.6.

Mr. H. Singh would repeatedly ask Ms. Hicks how

her boyfriend made her feel and if he made her feel good.

11.7.

Mr. H. Singh would repeatedly comment to Ms. Hicks

about the condoms found in the hotel rooms after guests would

leave and ask her “what do they do with all of those condoms?”

11.8.

On one occasion when whipped cream was found in

one of the hotel rooms after the guests departed, Mr. H. Singh

repeatedly asked Ms. Hicks if she knew what the guests had been

4

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 5 of 14

doing with strawberries and whipped cream. Ms. Hicks stated she

did not know.

11.9.

On one occasion when Ms. Hicks had developed a

rash (apparently from cleaning fluids), Mr. H. Singh asked to see

her hands. When she showed him her hands, he began to massage

them. Ms. Hicks quickly withdrew her hands.

12. At or about the same time as Ms. Hicks was being subjected

to the foregoing harassment, Ms. Hicks was aware that Mr. H.

Singh was subjecting the other female house keeping staff members

to sexual harassment including, without limitation, the

following:

12.1.

Requesting only Jennifer, one of the female house

keepers, to clean his room (Mr. Singh lived at the Travel Lodge);

12.2.

Asking co-worker Naimah Carmichael out for drinks

(she declined);

12.3.

Asking co-worker Naimah Carmichael what aged man

she was interested in and whether she would be interested in him;

12.4.

Asking co-worker Naimah Carmichael when she last

had sex and telling her that if it had been 2 or 3 months that

was too long (she told him it was not his business);

12.5.

Asking co-worker Naimah Carmichael while she was

applying Vaseline to her lips if she let anyone suck her lips

while she was in bed;

12.6.

Telling co-worker Naimah Carmichael that he was so

hungry he could eat her;

12.7.

Telling co-worker Naimah Carmichael that his mind

was telling him to do one thing while his hands were telling him

to do another;

12.8.

Unbuttoning his shirt in front of co-worker Sonia;

12.9.

Attempting to kiss co-worker Jennifer Heckrote in

one of the hotel rooms she was cleaning during the week of April

5

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 6 of 14
20, 2004; 12.10. Approaching co-worker Jennifer Heckrote while she
was cleaning one of the hotel rooms and begging her to let him taste her;
12.11. Asking co-worker Jennifer Heckrote if her boyfriend hurt her during sex;
12.12. Telling co-worker Jennifer Heckrote that he could be her boyfriend and that it was OK to cheat on her existing boyfriend;
12.13. Telling co-worker Jennifer Heckrote that everything is sexual in India (his country of origin), and telling her that he could take her there to show her how sexual everything is;
12.14. Asking co-worker Jennifer Heckrote to rub his shoulders because he needed a massage.
13. Ms. Hicks was aware of Mr. H. Singh’s conduct toward her coworkers as set forth above.
14. Ms. Hicks and her co-workers had reported Mr. H. Singh’s conduct to management, including, without limitation, immediate supervisor Ms. Sylvia Missimer, Defendant’s General Manager, but Defendant failed to take prompt or appropriate action to end the harassment.
15. On Friday June 4, 2004, Ms. Hicks and her co-workers decided that they could no longer tolerate Mr. H. Singh’s sexually harassing behavior, and went to the Pottstown Police Department to report the harassment.
16. Later that day, Ms. Hicks called General Manager Sylvia Missimer and told her that Mr. H. Singh had been harassing the
6

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 7 of 14
female employees, that they could not take it, and that they had reported the harassment to the police. Ms. Missimer told her that it was OK because it was Mr. H. Singh’s job.
17. On June 5, 2004, Ms. Hicks was fired in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment.
COUNT I (Discrimination in Violation of Title VII)
18. Intervener Hicks incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 17 above.
19. Defendant discriminated against Ms. Hicks with respect to the terms, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended).
20. Defendant also discharged Ms. Hicks without cause, on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended).
21. The acts and omissions of Defendant as set forth above were discriminatory, offensive, intimidating and unwelcome, created a hostile and offensive work environment, and imposed intolerable working conditions on Ms. Hicks.
22. Defendant knew and/or should have known of the sexual harassment of Ms. Hicks, and failed to take any prompt or effective action to remedy the retaliation, thereby furthering the harassment.
7

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 8 of 14
23. The sexual harassment of Ms. Hicks was severe and pervasive, altered the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment, and created a hostile working environment, all in violation of Ms. Hicks’ civil rights.
24. As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Hicks has suffered damages including, without limitation, embarrassment, humiliation, fear, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of self esteem, lost wages and benefits, and financial hardship.
25. Defendant is liable to Ms. Hicks for any and all lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
26. Additionally, Defendant acted willfully, intentionally, maliciously and/or with reckless indifference to Ms. Hicks’ rights in denying her equal employment opportunities and otherwise discriminating against her on the basis of her sex, and for such conduct, Defendant is liable to Ms. Hicks for compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. §1981a.
WHEREFORE, Intervener Kimberly E. Hicks, respectfully demands Judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Maharaja Hospitality, Inc., as follows:
1. Providing such relief as would place her in the position she would have been in absent Defendant’s unlawful, discriminatory conduct, and making her whole;
2. Prohibiting Defendant from continuing to engage in discriminatory conduct in violation of Title VII;
3. Awarding her back pay, front pay, overtime, other lost
8

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 9 of 14
wages and benefits, and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00;
4. Awarding her punitive and/or liquidated damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant for its willful, deliberate, reckless and/or outrageous conduct, and to deter Defendant from similar civil rights violations in the future;
5. Awarding her attorneys fees, costs, pre-judgment interest, and post judgment interest; and,
6. Awarding such other legal and/or equitable relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
COUNT II (Discrimination in Violation of the PHRA)
27. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 26 above.
28. At all times relevant, Defendant was an "employer" within the meaning of 43 Pa.C.S.A. § 951, et seq.
29. Defendant discriminated against Ms. Hicks with respect to the terms, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of her sex, in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
30. Defendant also discharged Ms. Hicks without cause, on the basis of her sex, in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
31. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Ms. Hicks is entitled to compensation for any and all lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, pre and post judgment interest and costs.
9

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 10 of 14
WHEREFORE, Intervener Kimberly E. Hicks, respectfully demands Judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Maharaja Hospitality, Inc., as follows:
1. Providing such relief as would place her in the position she would have been in absent Defendant’s unlawful, discriminatory conduct, and making her whole;
2. Prohibiting Defendant from continuing to engage in discriminatory and retaliatory conduct in violation of the PHRA.
3. Awarding her back pay, front pay, overtime, other lost wages and benefits, and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00;
4. Awarding her attorneys fees, costs, pre-judgment interest, and post judgment interest; and,
5. Awarding such other legal and/or equitable relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
COUNT III (Unlawful Retaliation)
32. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 31 above.
33. Under Title VII and the PHRA, it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee because she has “opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice” thereunder.
34. By addressing her concerns to management about the Defendant’s discriminatory employment practices, and reporting the sexual harassment to the Pottstown Police, Ms. Hicks opposed unlawful discrimination.
10

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 11 of 14
35. Once Ms. Hicks’ opposition to Defendant’s unlawful discrimination became known to Defendant, Defendant terminated her employment.
36. The Defendant terminated Ms. Hicks’ employment in retaliation for Ms. Hicks’ opposing unlawful discrimination and otherwise engaging in activity protected under Title VII and the PHRA, and the Defendant’s alleged bases therefor were pretextual.
37. Defendant’s unlawful conduct has violated and continues to violate Ms. Hicks’ civil rights as guaranteed by law.
38. Defendant’s retaliatory acts were and continue to be willful and intentional.
39. Defendant has engaged in the above retaliatory acts with malice, and/or with reckless indifference to Ms. Hicks’ rights.
40. As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Hicks has suffered damages including, without limitation, embarrassment, humiliation, fear, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of self esteem, illness, lost wages and benefits, and financial hardship.
41. Defendant is liable to Ms. Hicks for any and all lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
WHEREFORE, Intervener Kimberly E. Hicks, respectfully demands Judgment in her favor and against Defendant as follows:
1. Providing such relief as would place her in the
11

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 12 of 14
position she would have been in absent Defendant’s unlawful, discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, and making her whole;
2. Prohibiting Defendant from continuing to engage in discriminatory and retaliatory conduct in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.
3. Awarding her back pay, front pay, overtime, other lost wages and benefits, and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00;
4. Awarding her punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant for its willful, deliberate, reckless and/or outrageous conduct, and to deter Defendant from similar civil rights violations in the future.
5. Awarding her attorneys fees, costs, pre-judgment interest, and post judgment interest; and,
6. Awarding such other legal and/or equitable relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
HIRSCH & HIRSCH Date: February 10, 2006 BY:
JOSEPH A. HIRSCH, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID #66640 1 E. Wynnewood Road Suite 110 Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096 (610) 645-9222 Attorney for Intervener Hicks
12

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 13 of 14

Joseph A. Hirsch, Esq. Atty. Id. No. 66640 HIRSCH & HIRSCH 1 E. Wynnewood Road Suite 110 Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096 Telephone (610) 645-9222

Attorney for Intervener Kimberly E. Hicks

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION

:

Plaintiff

:

and

:

:

KIMBERLY E. HICKS,

:

NAIMAH N. CARMICHAEL, and

:

JENNIFER HECKROTE

:

:

Interveners

:

:

V.

:

:

MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC., D/B/A :

QUALITY INN BY CHOICE HOTELS

:

:

Defendant

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-6693
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Intervene upon the following via first class mail, postage prepaid:

Marisol Ramos, Esq. EEOC 21 S. 5th Street Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106

1

Case 2:05-cv-06693-JG Document 10 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 14 of 14
Patrick M. McHugh, Esq. 8040 Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 214 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19142 Attorney for Maharaja Hospitality, Inc.

Date: February 10, 2006

JOSEPH A. HIRSCH, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID #66640 1 E. Wynnewood Road, Suite 110 Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096 (610) 645-9222 Attorney for Intervener Hicks

2

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

:

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al. :

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC.

:

:

Defendant.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-6693

ORDER

AND NOW, this ___ day of September, 2006, in light of record rulings and

representations made on September 26, 2006, Plaintiffs Kimberly E. Hicks et al.’s Motion to

Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents (Docket No. 23) and Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Motion to Compel (Docket No. 24) are hereby

ORDERED DENIED AS MOOT.

BY THE COURT:
S/ James T. Giles J.

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION

:

vs.

:

:

MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-6693

O R D E R
AND NOW, TO WIT: This 30th day of May, 2007, it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court (effective January 1, 1970), it is
ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.

BY THE COURT

/s/ Carol Sandra Moore Wells CAROL SANDRA MOORE WELLS U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Civ 2 (7/83) 41.1(b)

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 05-cv-6693 (JG)

)

v.

)

)

MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC, d/b/a

)

QUALITY INN BY CHOICE HOTELS,

)

FILED

AUG- 1 2007

Defendant.

M/CHAELE

By'

' KUNZ, Clerk

_ _ _ _Oep, Clerk

CONSENT DECREE

A. This action was instituted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" and/or "the Commission") in 2004 against Defendant Maharaja Hospitality, Inc. ("Maharaja" and/or "Defendant") to enforce provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. 5 2000(e) et seq. ("Title VII"). In its Complaint, the Commission alleged that several female employees were subjected to sexual harassment and were retaliated against for reporting same. Defendant alleged that the sexual harassment did not occur and denied all allegations in the Complaint.
B. This Consent Decree is entered into by and shall be final and binding between the EEOC, all Interveners and Maharaja, its directors, officers, agents, successors and assigns.
C. EEOC, Intervenors, and Maharaja agree to the entry of this Consent Decree, which shall fully and finally resolve all claims raised in the Complaints in Civil Action No. 05-cv-6693 (JG).
D. This Consent Decree shall not constitute either an adjudication of or finding on the merits of the complaint and shall not be construed as an admission by Defendant of any violation of Title VII.
Findings

1

F. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings, record and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds: (1) it has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter jurisdiction of this action; and (2) the terms of this Decree are fair, reasonable, equitable and just, and adequately protect the rights of the parties, and the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
Non-Discrimination and Non-Retaliation 1. All parties agree that C.A. 05-cv-6693 is dismissed with prejudice, subject to Paragraph 19 of this Decree. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action. 3. Defendant will not harass any employee on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. 4. Defendant will not engage in any employment practices which retaliate in any manner against any employee. 5. Should an inquiry be made by a prospective employer of one of the named individuals in this lawsuit, Defendant shall only divulge to any identifiable employer or potential employer limited information, including the start date, position title, final salary, and end date of employment, and indicate that such limited disclosure is part of its business practice. 6. Nothing in this Consent Decree, either by inclusion or exclusion, shall be construed to limit the obligations of Defendant under Title VII or the EEOC's authority to process or litigate any charge of discrimination filed in the future against Defendant.
Monetary Relief 7. In full settlement of the claims raised on their behalf against Defendant in the EEOC's and Interveners Complaints, Maharaja agrees to pay the sum total of $35,000, to be distributed to the identified claimants as indicated in Attachment A. Ms. Hicks, Ms. Carmichael and Ms. Heckrote will be required to execute a
2

Release, which will be forwarded by Defendant to their private attorney. Ms. Chestnut will be required to sign the attached Release (Attachment B) which will be forwarded by the Commission to Defendant, in order to receive the monetary payment, as specified in Attachment A. 8. Within fourteen (14) days after Maharaja of receipt of each executed Release, Defendant will make the monetary payment to the claimants. Defendant Maharaja will submit proof of payment by mailing a copy of each check issued in this matter to: Judith A. O'Boyle, Supervisory Trial Attorney, EEOC, Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19107. Late payment of the checks will be subject to the accrual of interest on the unpaid amount, calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 1961. The checks shall be made payable to Ms. Hicks, Ms. Heckrote and Ms. Carmichael respectively, and to their private attorney, Joseph A. Hirsch, Esq. Ms. Chestnut's check will be provided to the EEOC for delivery. 9. Defendant Maharaja agrees to issue a Form 1099 to each individual receiving proceeds from the settlement, which will be mailed promptly to the claimants through their attorney, Joseph Hirsch, Esq., for the 2007 tax year.
Posting of Notice 10. Within 20 business days after entry of this Decree, Defendant shall post at its Pottstown, Pennsylvania location at Maharaja Hospitality (doing business as Quality Inn), on its bulletin board, used by Defendant for communicating with employees, same-sized copies of the Notice attached as Attachment C to this Decree. The Notice shall remain posted for two (2) years from the date of entry of this Decree. Defendant shall forward a certification that the Notice has been posted and the date of posting, within 30 days after entry of this Decree to Judith A. O'Boyle, Supervisory Trial Attorney, EEOC, Philadelphia District Office, 801 Market Street, Suite l300, Philadelphia, PA 19107. 11. If the posted copies become defaced, removed, marred or otherwise illegible, Defendant agrees to
3

post a readable copy in the same manner as heretofore specified. Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policies and Complaint Procedures
12. Defendant agrees to draft a policy against discrimination, harassment and retaliation and complaint procedures, which shall be drafted in plain and simple language. Defendant shall ensure that its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation and related complaint procedures meet the following minimum criteria:
(a) State that Defendant: (i) prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of sex, and prohibits retaliation in violation of Title VII; (ii) prohibits retaliation against employees for opposing employment practices they reasonably believe are discriminatory or for participating in an investigation by the EEOC or a state or local governmental agency of a charge of discrimination under Title VII; (iii) prohibits any act, policy or practice that has the effect of harassing or intimidating any employee on the basis of sex, in violation of Title VII; and (iv) prohibits any act, policy or practice that has the effect of creating, facilitating or permitting the existence of a work environment that is hostile to employees through acts such as physical or verbal abuse and derogatory comments based on sex, in violation of Title VII;
(b) include a complaint procedure designed to encourage employees to come forward with complaints regarding violations of its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation, which shall meet the following minimum criteria: (i) provide effective mechanism(s) for reporting incidents of discrimination, harassment and retaliation; (ii) provide that the complaints of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation can be made either in writing or verbally; (iii) identify an employee or employees at Defendant's worksite(s), to whom an employee can make a complaint; (iv) encourage prompt reporting by employees; and (v) provide assurances that complainants shall not be subjected to retaliation;
(c) provide for prompt investigation of complaints of harassment and/or retaliation; (d) provide for prompt communication to the complaining party of the results of the investigation
4

and any remedial actions taken or proposed; and (e) provide for discipline up to and including discharge of an employee or supervisor who violates
Defendant's policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and for increasingly severe discipline of repeat offenders. 13. Defendant shall distribute to all of its employees and newly-hired employees, its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation within 45 days after entry of this Consent Decree. 14. Within 60 days after entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall advise Judith A. O'Boyle, Supervisory Trial Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, that its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation have been distributed to current employees, including temporary employees, via paycheck enclosure and that new employees, including temporary employees, will receive these policies and an opportunity to acknowledge receipt. Defendant will retain copies of any acknowledgment of receipt form for an employee in the employee's personnel file.
Training
15. Defendant shall provide training on the requirements of Title VII as follows: (a) Defendant agrees to provide a training session for managers and supervisors of employees
at its Maharaja Hospitality facility away from its Pottstown, Pennsylvania premises. Defendant agrees to an initial a three-hour training by the EEOC, which will cost $700. The training will cover employee rights and employer obligations under both Title VII, and relevant state or local anti-discrimination laws. The training will emphasize what constitutes unlawful harassment and discrimination in the workplace, how to keep the company free from such discrimination, what constitutes unlawful retaliation, and will summarize how to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into allegations, complaints or charges of discrimination;
(b) Defendant shall first provide training in accordance with Paragraph 15(a) within 90 calendar
5

days after entry of this Consent Decree. Dispute Resolution
16. In the event either party to this Decree believes the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance within 20 days of the alleged non-compliance and afford the alleged non-complying party 20 business days to remedy the non-compliance or satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within 20 business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
Miscellaneous Provisions 17. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 18. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, successors and assigns of Defendant in their capacities as representatives, agents, directors and officers of Defendant and not in their individual capacities. This paragraph shall not be construed as placing any limit on remedies available to the Court in the event any individual is found in contempt for a violation of this Decree. This Consent Decree shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 05-cv-6693. 19. This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and shall continue in effect for three (3) years. During this time, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the parties for purposes of enforcing compliance with the Decree, including issuing such orders as may be required to effectuate its purposes. Any application by any party to modify or vacate this Consent Decree during such period shall be made by motion to the Court on no less than 30 days' notice to the other party..
6

20. The Clerk of the District Court is hereby directed to send a file-stamped copy of this Consent Decree to counsel of record.
7

For Plaintiff EEOC:
Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel Wash., D.C. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
MMISSION
cq Regional Attorney
Ot~fiiZ, U. ()~~
ffudith A. O'Boyle Supervisory Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 440-2669
By the Court:

For Defendant Maharaja Hospitality, Inc.:
Date: 11;'7

ATTACHMENT A

Distribution of monetary relief to the Claimants will be as follows:

Naimah Carmichael Jennifer Heckrote Levengood Kimberly Hicks Monica Chestnut

$10,666.66 $ 10,666.66 $ 10,666.66 $ 3,000.00

9

ATTACHMENT C
NOTICE TO ALL MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY INC. EMPLOYEES

This Notice is posted pursuant to a resolution of a Complaint brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e et seq., as amended ("Title VII"), prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment based upon national origin, sex, race, color or religion. Title VII further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves of their rights under Title VII by engaging in protected activities, such as filing a charge of discrimination and for testifying or participating in a Commission investigation. The EEOC is the federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination. The EEOC has the authority to bring lawsuits in federal court to enforce Title VII. The EEOC is charged with assuring compliance of all employers with Title VII.
Maharaj a agreed that it will adhere to Title VII in all respects.
If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (215) 440-2600. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.

THIS NOTICE MUST NOT BE DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED BY ANYONE. IT SHALL REMAIN POSTED UNTIL JULY 26, 2009.

/
.S. qual Employment Opportunity Dated: -'11'~<-t (5) C~'J ~-9t>::V -;

~' 2
Maharaja Hospitality, Inc. Dated: J~~{Q?t)~7

11

 
 United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-06693-JG

08/17/2007 01:06 PM
STANDARD

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC. Assigned to: HONORABLE JAMES T. GILES Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sexual Harassment)

Date Filed: 12/22/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2687 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. O'BOYLE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2687 Email: judith.oboyle@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff

MARISOL RAMOS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 SOUTH 5TH STREET SUITE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-2515 215-440-2619 Email: marisol.ramos@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?936542512665129-L_835_0-1

Page 1 of 6

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
KIMBERLY E. HICKS
Intervenor Plaintiff NAIMAH N. CARMICHAEL
Intervenor Plaintiff JENNIFER HECKROTE
V. Defendant MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC. doing business as QUALITY INN BY CHOICE HOTELS
Intervenor Defendant MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC. doing business as QUALITY INN BY CHOICE HOTELS

08/17/2007 01:06 PM
represented by JOSEPH A. HIRSCH HIRSCH AND HIRSCH ONE WYNNEWOOD ROAD SUITE 110 WYNNEWOOD, PA 19096 610-645-9222 Fax: 610-645-9223 Email: jahirsch@juno.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOSEPH A. HIRSCH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JOSEPH A. HIRSCH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK M. MCHUGH 8040 ROOSEVELT BLVD STE 214 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19152 215-332-0707 Email: pmmch@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK M. MCHUGH (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

#

Docket Text

12/22/2005

1 COMPLAINT against MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC. , filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(tj, ) (Entered: 12/22/2005)

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?936542512665129-L_835_0-1

Page 2 of 6

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

08/17/2007 01:06 PM

12/22/2005 12/22/2005 01/09/2006
01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 02/06/2006
02/13/2006 02/13/2006 02/13/2006

Summons Issued; 1 Mailed to counsel 12/22/05 as to MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC. (tj, ) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (tj, ) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
2 MOVANTS KIMBERLY E. HICKS, NAIMAH N. CARMICHAEL, JENNIFER HECKROTE'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFFS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jpd) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/9/2006 (jpd, ). (Entered: 01/09/2006)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by PATRICK M. MCHUGH on behalf of MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC. with Certificate of Service (jpd, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
4 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC., CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jpd) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
5 DEFENDANT MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC.'S ANSWER TO MOTION TO INTERVENE, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jpd) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
6 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC. TO COMPLAINT OF INTERVENER KIMBERLY E. HICKS. (jpd) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
7 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC. TO COMPLAINT OF INTERVENER NAIMAH N. CARMICHAEL. (jpd) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
8 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC. TO COMPLAINT OF INTERVENER JENNIFER HECKROTE. (jpd) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
9 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO INTERVENE OF KIMBERLY E. HICKS, NAIMAH N. CARMICHAEL AND JENNIFER HECKROTE TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFFS IS GRANTED. INTERVENERS SHALL EACH HAVE FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER TO FILE AND SERVE A SEPARATE COMPLAINT CONSISTENT WITH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE EEOC COMPLAINT. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAMES T. GILES ON 2/6/06. 2/7/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND EMAILED. (jpd) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
10 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by KIMBERLY E. HICKS, Certificate fo Service.(jpd) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
11 INTERVENER COMPLAINT, FILED BY JENNIFER HECKROTE, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jpd) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
12 INTERVENER COMPLAINT, FILED BY NAIMAH N. CARMICHAEL, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jpd) (Entered: 02/13/2006)

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?936542512665129-L_835_0-1

Page 3 of 6

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

08/17/2007 01:06 PM

02/13/2006 03/10/2006 03/10/2006 03/10/2006 03/13/2006 04/28/2006 04/28/2006
04/28/2006 05/17/2006
06/16/2006

13 AFFIDAVIT of Service by National Legal Services re: served Complaint and Summons upon Kuldip S. Kasuri by In person on January 11, 2006 (RAMOS, MARISOL) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
14 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint of Kimberly E. Hicks by MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC., Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmative Defenses # 2 Certificate of Service)(MCHUGH, PATRICK) Modified on 3/14/2006 (cdd, ). (Entered: 03/10/2006)
15 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint of Jennifer Neckrote by MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC., Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmative Defenses # 2 Certificate of Service)(MCHUGH, PATRICK) Modified on 3/14/2006 (cdd, ). (Entered: 03/10/2006)
16 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint of Naimah N. Carmichael by MAHARAJA HOSPITALITY, INC., Certificat of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmative Defenses # 2 Certificate of Service)(MCHUGH, PATRICK) Modified on 3/14/2006 (cdd, ). (Entered: 03/10/2006)
17 ORDER THAT A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS SET FOR 4/26/2006 AT 4:00 P.M. IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS ROOM 17614 BEFORE HONORABLE JAMES T. GILES. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAMES T. GILES ON 3/13/06. 3/14/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (jpd) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
18 Minute Entry for Pretrial Conference held before Judge JAMES T. GILES held on 4/26/06. (jpd) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
19 SCHEDULING ORDER THAT DISCOVERY ON JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES, WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS AN EMPLOYER WITHIN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 6/27/06; DEFENDANT SHALL FILE ANY MOTION CONTESTING JURISDICTION UNDER EMPLOYEE DEFINITION NO LATER THAN 7/5/06; ORAL ARGUMENT ON SAID ISSUE SHALL COMMENCE ON 7/27/06 AT 4:30 P.M. IN COURTROOM 17A; ETC.. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAMES T. GILES ON 4/27/06. 5/1/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: ORAL ARGUMENT SET FOR 7/27/2006 04:30 PM BEFORE HONORABLE JAMES T. GILES. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
20 ORDER THAT ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION SCHEDULED FOR 7/27/06 (DOCKET NO. 19) IS RESCHEDULED FOR 7/25/2006 AT 5:00 P.M. IN COURTROOM 17-A BEFORE HONORABLE JAMES T. GILES. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAMES T. GILES ON 5/17/06. 5/17/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (jpd) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
21 ORDER THAT A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD ON 7/7/2006 AT 11:30 AM BEFORE HONORABLE JAMES T. GILES IN RM.

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?936542512665129-L_835_0-1

Page 4 of 6

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

08/17/2007 01:06 PM

07/07/2006 08/15/2006 08/23/2006 09/22/2006 09/27/2006 09/27/2006
09/28/2006
05/30/2007 07/13/2007

17614. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAMES T. GILES ON 6/16/06. 6/19/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(jmp, ) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
22 Minute Entry for Pretrial Conference held before Judge JAMES T. GILES held on 7/7/06. (jpd) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
23 MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents filed by KIMBERLY E. HICKS, NAIMAH N. CARMICHAEL, JENNIFER HECKROTE.Certificate of Service.(HIRSCH, JOSEPH) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
24 MOTION to Compel filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit exhibits 1-7)(RAMOS, MARISOL) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
25 ORDER THAT A CONFERENCE IS SET FOR 9/26/2006 AT 3:00 P.M. IN COURTROOM 17-A BEFORE HONORABLE JAMES T. GILES. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAMES T. GILES ON 9/22/06. 9/22/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jpd) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
26 Minute Entry for Recorded Pretrial Conference held before Judge JAMES T. GILES on 9/26/06. ESR: CONNIE FLORES. Statements by Counsel. MOTION TO COMPEL-MOOT. (jpd,) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
27 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY E. HICKS MOTION TO COMPEL (DOC. NO.23) AND THE PLAINTIFF EEOC MOTION TO COMPEL (DOC. 24) ARE DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAMES T. GILES ON 9/27/06. 9/28/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED AND FAXED. (jpd) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/2/2006 (jpd, ). (Entered: 09/28/2006)
28 ORDER THAT DISCOVERY DUE BY 12/31/2006. MOTIONS DUE BY 6/1/2007. TRIAL DATE SET FOR 7/9/2007 09:30 AM IN COURTROOM BEFORE HONORABLE JAMES T. GILES. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR 6/29/2007 02:00 PM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE JAMES T. GILES. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAMES T. GILES ON 9/28/06. 9/28/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jpd) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/2/2006 (jpd, ). (Entered: 09/28/2006)
29 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 41.1(b). SIGNED BY JUDGE CAROL SANDRA MOORE WELLS ON 5/30/07. 5/31/07 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (jpd) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
30 ORDER THAT COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES AND MR. KASURI SHALL BE PRESENT IN CHAMBERS, WITH ALL CLOSING DOCUMENTS AND CHECKS ON THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2007 AT 10:00AM.. SIGNED BY JUDGE CAROL SANDRA MOORE WELLS. 7/13/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND, E-MAILED.(sc, ) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?936542512665129-L_835_0-1

Page 5 of 6

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

08/17/2007 01:06 PM

07/13/2007 07/27/2007 08/01/2007

CONFERENCE SET FOR 7/26/2007 10:00 AM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL SANDRA MOORE WELLS. (sc, ) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
31 ORDER THAT THE ORDER DATED 5/30/07 IS VACATED. SIGNED BY JUDGE CAROL SANDRA MOORE WELLS ON 7/27/07. 7/27/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (jpd) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
32 CONSENT DECREE. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAMES T. GILES ON 8/1/07. 8/2/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(jpd) (Entered: 08/02/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

08/17/2007 14:06:12

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:05-cv-06693-JG

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

0.24

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?936542512665129-L_835_0-1

Page 6 of 6