Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 1 Filed 06/11/1999 Page 1 of 7

ru r:-r,

.

I

I

I

(~',~,~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA:,:: I I I "

TAMPA DIVISION

,'I, ,C· I ,

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC. and )

INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, )

INC. and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, )

INC. d/b/a RIO BRAVO CANTINA

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
qtj- /3?/- (!I t/-7- / ? /1
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater particularity in paragraph 11, the Commission alleges that Ms. Calvo, Ms. Ferek, Ms. Scarborough and similarly situated individuals were subjected to sexual harassment by Robert Evans, a management official of the Defendant corporations. The Commission further alleges that Defendants subsequently retaliated against Ms. Calvo, Ms. Ferek and Ms. Scarborough for complaining of the unlawful sexual harassment by subjecting them to adverse terms and conditions of employment, discharge and/or constructive discharge.

/
.-~ ,

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 1

- Filed 06/11/1999 Page 2 of 7

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451,1331,1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(t)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the Untied States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(t)(I) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Rio Bravo International, Inc. has continuously been doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Clearwater, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. has continuously been doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Clearwater, and has continuously had at least 15 employees 6. At all relevant times, Applebee's International, Inc. has continuously been doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Clearwater, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 7. At all relevant times Rio Bravo International, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 1 Filed 06/11/1999 Page 3 of 7
and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h). 8. At all relevant times Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. has continuously been
an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h).
9. At all relevant times, Applebee's International, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 10. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek and Melissa Scarborough each filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 11. Since at least February of 1996, Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Clearwater, Florida location in violation of Section 703(a) and Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a) and §2000e-3(a).
a. Sheri Calvo was subjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment.
b. Defendants retaliated against Sheri Calvo for complaining of the unlawful sexual harassment by subjecting her to adverse terms and conditions of

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 1

Filed 06/11/1999 Page 4 of 7
-

employment, including unfavorable work schedules and job assignments, and subsequently discharging her from her position. c. Veronica Ferek was subjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment. d. Defendants retaliated against Veronica Ferek for complaining of the unlawful sexual harassment by forcing her to resign her position. e. Melissa Scarborough was subjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment. f. Defendants retaliated against Melissa Scarborough for complaining of the unlawful sexual harassment by discharging her from her position. g. Other similarly situated female employees of the Defendants were subjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 1

- Filed 06/11/1999 Page 5 of 7

action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment. 12. The effect of the conduct complained of in paragraph 11 above has been to deprive Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex and/or in retaliation for their opposition to unlawful employment practices .. 13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 11 above were intentional. 14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 11 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in sexual harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and/or opposition to an unlawful employment practice. B. Order Defendants, to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendants to make whole Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 1

- Filed 06/11/1999 Page 6 of 7

reinstatement and rightful place promotion or front pay. D. Order Defendants to make whole Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa
Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 11 above, including out of pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendants to make whole Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 11 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendants to pay Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 11 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs ofthis action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

C.GREGORYSTEWART General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 1 Filed 06/11/1999 Page 7 of 7
DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney
GILBERT CARRILLO Supervisory Trial Attorney
Trial Attor y FL Bar No. 0053228
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Miami District Office Two South Biscayne Boulevard One Biscayne Tower Miami, Florida 33131 Phone - (305) 530-6008 Facsimile - (305) 536-4494

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 46

Filed 07/21/2000 Page 1 of 3
FGn

21k~1hO: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

\

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORID.AuO JUL

09

TAMPA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CASE NO.: 99-CV-1371-T-17A

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., and INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC., and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a RIO BRAVO CANTINA,

Defendants.
---------------------------------/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE is again before the Court on Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to

Compel (doc. 25)I and Defendant's response thereto (doc. 32). PlaintiffEqual Employment

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed this sexual harassment case against Defendants on

July 6, 1999. Shortly thereafter, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, and Melissa Scarborough

("Intervenors") served a Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff Intervenors. At this juncture, the

Intervenors served a copy of a notice of deposition and a subpoena duces tecum on John Moore, Vice President of Human Resources for Rio Bravo.2 Upon receiving a copy of the

I This Court previously entered an Order finding that Plaintiff's motion was not an emergency and postponing resolution of this matter until Defendant had an opportunity to respond to the motion (doc. 28).
2 The Notice of Taking Video Deposition Duces Tecum (attached to doc. 25) fails to indicate that Moore will be deposed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6). Accordingly, the Court treats the Intervenors' notice as naming Moore to be deposed in his individual capacity rather than as an officer designated on behalf of Rio Bravo under Rule 30(b)(6).

A072A (Rev.8/82)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 46 Filed 07/21/2000 Page 2 of 3
notice of deposition, Defendant filed objections to the documents sought in the subpoena duces tecum. In response, Intervenors have filed the instant motion seeking entry ofan order requiring Moore to produce documents at his deposition pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum.3
Defendant claims the Intervenors should have used either a Request for Production under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 or a Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition ofa corporate representative to obtain the documents requested by the Moore duces tecum. I agree that Moore, in his individual capacity, is not responsible for producing corporate documents. Accordingly, I find that Moore should produce all non-corporate documents responsive to the Intervenors' requests that are in his possession, custody or control that are not protected by the attorneyclient privilege and are not work product.
It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Compel is GRANTED (doc. 25) only to the
extent that Moore is directed to produce non-corporate documents responsive to the Intervenors' requests that are in his possession, custody or control that are not protected by the attorney-client privilege and are not

A072A (Rev.8/82)

3 Originally, Mr. Moore's deposition was scheduled for May 19,2000. However, counsel for Intervenors has advised the Court that Mr. Moore's deposition has since been cancelled and rescheduled for August 8, 2000.

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 46 Filed 07/21/2000 Page 3 of 3

work product.
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at Tampa. Florida on this Iq~of July.
2000.

Copies to: Counsel of Record

MARK A. PIZZO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

A072A (Rev.8/82)

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 97 Filed 10/31/2000 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

and

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK and MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No. 99-1371-CIV-T-17A

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC. and INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC., and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a RIO BRAVO CANTINA,

Defendants.

------------------------~/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on (1) Defendant's Motion to Compel Mental

Examination (doc. 52), (2) Defendants' Motion to Withdraw Defendant's Motion to Compel

Mental Examination (doc. 65-1), Defendants' Motion to Substitute Defendant's Revised

Motion to Compel Mental Examination (doc. 65-2), Defendants' Revised Motion to Compel

Mental Examination (doc. 65-3), and Plaintiffs' response thereto (doc. 67).

This is a Title VII action in which the Plaintiffand Intervenor-Plaintiffs allege sexual

discrimination against their former employer. Intervenor-Plaintiffs, Sheri Calvo, Veronica

Ferek, and Melissa Scarborough, contend they were subjected to continuous sexual

A072A (Rev.8/82)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 97 Filed 10/31/2000 Page 2 of 4
harassment by an assistant manager during their employment as servers and hostesses with a Rio Bravo restaurant located in Clearwater, Florida. Defendants presently seek to have Intervenor-Plaintiffs submit to mental examinations by Dr. Barbara Stein, Ph.D., pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 35(a) for the purpose of assessing the cause and extent ofthe Intervenor-Plaintiffs' alleged emotional and mental injuries. Defendants argue the mental examination of each Intervenor-Plaintiff should be ordered because (a) each plaintiffhas placed her mental condition in controversy through allegations ofcontinuing and severe emotional pain and mental anguish and by expressing the intention to present both lay and expert testimony as to mental damages; (b) Dr. Stein is suitably licensed to conduct such examinations; and (c) good cause exists to order the mental examinations.
The Intervenor-Plaintiffs contend their mental conditions have not been placed in controversy in this lawsuit because (a) a cause ofaction for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress has not been pled; (b) there is no specific mental or psychiatric injury alleged; (c) no claim for unusually severe emotional distress has been pled; (d) they have not sought any psychiatric or psychological counseling and do not have any present plans to visit any such physicians for problems they relate to what happened at Rio Bravo; (e) they will not be presenting any expert testimony on the issue ofemotional damages; and (f) they have not conceded that their mental conditions are in controversy.
UnderFed. R. Civ. P. 35, Defendants must establish the Intervenor-Plaintiffs' mental conditions are in controversy and good cause exists for the examinations sought. The predicates ofRule 35 are not met by the mere conclusory allegations of the pleadings or by arguing the information sought in the mental examination is relevant to the case. Rule 35
2
A072A (Rev.8/82)

I'
lCase 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP

Document 97

Filed 10/31/2000 Page 3 of 4

requires an affirmative showing by the movant the condition as to which the examination is sought is genuinely in controversy and good cause for ordering the examination exists. Schlagenhaufv. Holder, 379 U.S. 104,118 (1964). This requires a greater showing than for other types ofdiscovery under Rule 26. Ali v. Wang Laboratories,Inc., 162 F.R.D. 165, 167 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
A party seeking a mental examination must go beyond the pleadings to establish that the need for an IME exists. Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 118. For a court to mandate a Rule 35 examination in such an instance, a more specific claim must be made. See Ali, 162 F.R.D. at 168 (the plaintiff must state something more than a mere claim for emotional distress); Lahr v. Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P., 164 F.R.D. 204,209 (N.D. Tex. 1996)(a court will likely order an IME where a plaintiffhas asserted a separate claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress or where the plaintiff alleges severe mental suffering); Shepard v. American Broadcasting, 151 F.R.D. 194, 212 (D.D.C. 1993)(if plaintiff seeks treatment for the mental injury or is likely to offer expert testimony on the issue of emotional distress, an IME may be appropriate).
Here, the Intervenor-Plaintiffs seek damages for general emotional pain and suffering and mental anguish only as a component of their discrimination claim. In the motion before the Court, Defendants appear to only rely upon conclusory allegations in the pleadings and have not presented hard facts indicating the Intervenor-Plaintiffs have placed their mental conditions at issue. Thus, I find the Defendants have not met their burden to establish the Intervenor-Plaintiffs' mental conditions are in controversy.

3
A072A (Rev.8/82)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 97 Filed 10/31/2000 Page 4 of 4
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Defendants' Motion to Compel Mental Examination (doc. 52) is DENIED
as moot. 2. Defendants' Motion to Withdraw Defendant's Motion to Compel Mental
Examination (doc. 65-1) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to purge Document 52 from the record and return Document 52 to Defendants' counsel. 3. Defendants' Motion to Substitute Defendant's Revised Motion to Compel Mental Examination (doc. 65-2) is GRANTED. 4. Defendants' Revised Motion to Compel Mental Examination (doc. 65-3) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Tampa, Florida, on this ~ day of
October, 2000.
M~ 0-1l,;ye
MARK A. PIZZO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
4
A072A (Rev 8/82)

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 170 Filed 12/13/2000 Page 1 of 2

-,.

~~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

00 DEC' 3 t~;ifO: 0 I

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

I.", I •• ,

,- .:~- C:.'iT . ,'.: :"·'--~j(!JA

~

j, ' ••• \

Plaintiff,

vs.

CASE NO.: 99-CV-1371-T-17A

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., and INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC., and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/bla RIO BRAVO CANTINA,

__________D__ef_e_nd_a_n_ts_.______________1

ORDER Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Compel Production and to Reopen Kathryn Milcowitz' Deposition (doc. 57) and Plaintiffs response thereto (doc. 73). By their motion, Defendants seek to have this Court compel Plaintiff to produce a journal kept by Kathryn Milcowitz during a nine month time period from 1996 to 1997, and to reopen Ms. Milcowitz' deposition for the limited purpose to question her about particular journal entries. Plaintiff claims, after a reasonable and diligent effort to locate the journal, Ms. Milcowitz has been unable to locate the journal and, thus, cannot produce the journal to Defendants. Plaintiff also claims, even if the journal could be located, the entire journal is not subject to discovery because the journal contains both information concerning the Defendants employees and personal information dealing with every aspect of Ms. Milcowitz' private life.

,J\

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 170 Filed 12/13/2000 Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' Motion to Compel Production and To Reopen Kathryn
Milcowitz' Deposition (doc. 57) is DENIED. 2. Should Ms. Milcowitz locate her journal, Plaintiff is directed to
supplement its response to Defendants' request for the journal in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 26(e). At that time, Plaintiff may file a motion for protective order to limit disclosure of Ms. Milcowitz' journal.
1..1 DONE and ORDERED in chambers at Tampa, Florida on this -day of
December, 2000.

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Mark A. Pizzo United States Magistrate Judge

2
A072A (Rev.8/82)

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 171 Filed 12/13/2000 Page 1 of 4

r-
f ILt.D

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

~

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 00 D~-C

TAMPA DIVISION

...

; ..'
r.. ,

rn.
U·

00

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

(" ~ . •,-' i. .

'T C~"FiT
. :-~_~J.\;L:A ~__ I.' _. \

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CASE NO.: 99-CV-1371-T-17A

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., and INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC., and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a RIO BRAVO CANTINA,

Defendants.
--------------------------------/
ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff EEOC to Produce Documents (doc. 54-1) or to Compel Plaintiff EEOC to Produce a Privilege Log Complying with this Court's order dated July 21, 2000 (doc. 54-2), and Plaintiff's response thereto (doc. 76). By its motion, Defendants seek (a) to compel Plaintiff to produce certain documents as requested in Defendants' First Request for Production, request no. 1, served on Plaintiff September 3, 1999, or, in the alternative, (b) to compel Plaintiff to amend its privilege log with the same sufficient specificity as required of Defendants by this Court in its order dated July 21, 2000. (See doc. 45) Plaintiff objects to Defendants' motion by arguing the information provided in its privilege log is more than sufficient to justify withholding the documents pursuant to the governmental deliberative process privilege. Plaintiff asserts the description of each document contained in the log

A072A

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 171 Filed 12/13/2000 Page 2 of 4

A072A (Rev.8/82)

provides (a) the author of the document, (b) the recipient, (c) the date, if known, and (d) the nature of each document.
The Plaintiff's contention that its privilege log is "more than sufficient" is not welltaken by this Court. This Court fmds, after review of the certain log entries as reproduced in Defendant's motion, the Plaintiff's log does not comply with the privilege log requirements set forth by this Court for this particular case. On July 21,2000, this Court directed the Defendants to produce a privilege log in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 26(b)(5) (doc. 45). Accordingly, the privilege log must specify which Request(s) to Produce applies. In addition, the log shall identify with sufficient specificity any of the following: (1) the identity of the document; (2) the individuals who were parties to the communications; (3) the relationship between the individuals listed in the log and the litigating parties; (4) specific facts and details as to each document which would suffice to establish each element of each privilege claimed. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 1995 WL 855421, *5 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 1995)(citing Bowne o/New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1993».
Plaintiff's log does not meet these requirements. Therefore, Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to provide Defendants with an amended privilege log and supporting evidentiary material that complies with the requirements discussed above. The log shall address each withheld document individually, though Plaintiff may designate groups of documents that are related in an effort to maintain organization.
Thereafter, if Defendants reasonably believe the asserted privileges have not been sufficiently established, they shall meet and confer with Plaintiff in a good faith attempt
2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 171 Filed 12/13/2000 Page 3 of 4
to resolve these issues without court intervention. If the parties still cannot agree on the appropriate discovery to which Defendants are entitled, Defendants may renew their motion to compel Plaintiff to produce documents at that time.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff EEOC to Produce Documents
(doc. 54-1) is DENIED without prejudice. 2. The Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff EEOC to Produce a Privilege
Log Complying with the Court's Order Dated July 21,2000 (doc. 54-2) is GRANTED. The Plaintiff is directed to revise its privilege log as set forth in this order. 3. If Defendants reasonably believe the asserted privileges have not been sufficiently established, it is directed to confer with Plaintiff within twenty (20) days of the submission of Plaintiffs revised privilege log in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by Defendants' Motion to Compel (doc. 54). The parties are urged to meet face to face in order to fulfill the good faith requirement of Local Rule 3.01(g). 4. In the event Defendants determine an amended motion to compel is necessary with regard to its Request for Production, Defendants are directed to comply with Local Rule 3.04. With regard to each request and individual subpart, Defendants shall include the following information:
3
A072A (Rev.8/82)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 171

- Filed 12/13/2000 Page 4 of 4

a. quote in full each request for production,

b. the Plaintiffs objections and grounds therefor,

c. the Defendants' assertions as to why Plaintiff's objections should be

overruled.

d. The above infonnation should be set forth separately with regard to each

request and each subpart.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers at Tampa, Florida on this I:J day of

December, 2000. Copies to: Counsel of Record

~,..J.-<e~
Mark A. Pizzo
United States Magistrate Judge

4
A072A (Rev.B/B2)

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 172 Filed 12/13/2000 Page 1 of 2
J ArrD

~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 'tt-.
MIDDL~~~:~~~i;;O~C !JZ1O: 00

, .

i.

;.7_ ~"";r\T

; I" ~~ ~Cr,,:U,.~

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

~ ! ',: ,',':,

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CASE NO.: 99-CV-1371-T-17A

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., and INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC., and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/bla RIO BRAVO CANTINA,

Defendants. ________________________________1

ORDER

Before the Court is (1) Defendants' Motion to Compel Answers to Defendants' Third Set of Interrogatories (doc. 55) and Plaintiff's response thereto (doc. 77); (2) Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sheri Calvo's Answers to Defendants' Second Set of Interrogatories (doc. 56-1) and Plaintiff's response thereto (doc. 72); and (3) Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Documents Responsive to Defendants' Second Request for Production of Documents (doc. 56-2) and Plaintiff's response thereto (doc. 72). In a previous order (doc. 45), this Court made clear that motions to compel filed with the court must comply with Local Rule 3.04. This Court provided in detail the

information and the order in which the information shall be presented that is required by Local Rule 3.04 for any motion to compel. Having carefully reviewed the papers filed with

this Court, Defendants' motions are denied for failure to comply Local Rule 3.04.

A072A (Rev.8/82)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 172 Filed 12/13/2000 Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' Motion to Compel Answers to Defendants' Third Set of

Interrogatories (doc. 55) is DENIED.

2. Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff Sheri Calvo's Answers to

Defendants' Second Set ofInterrogatories (doc. 56-1) is DENIED.

3. Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiffto Produce Documents Responsive

to Defendants' Second Request for Production of Documents (doc. 56-2) is

DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers at Tampa, Florida on this I ~ day of

December, 2000. Copies to: Counsel of Record

/vt~~~
Mark A. Pizzo United States Magistrate Judge

2
A072A (Rev 8/82)

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 215
....
'I.

Filed 02/21/2001

.'

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPADMSION

Page 1 of 2
FILED

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK and MELISSA SCARBOROUGH
Plaintiffs,

vs.

CASE NO.:8:99-1371-CN-T-17MAP ,

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------~/
ORDER

This cause is before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Compel Complete

Damages Disclosures (doc. 58) and Plaintiffs' response thereto (doc. 214). Intervenor

Plaintiffs, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek and Melissa Scarborough, seek, individually, the

following categories of damages in this Title VII employment discrimination case: (a)

prejudgment earnings (back pay) plus interest; (b) costs of seeking, preparing for, and

beginning alternative employment; (c) liquidated damages pursuant to Title VII; (d) front

pay; (e) non-economic damages for emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of

enjoyment of life, injury to professional standing, injury to character and reputation, injury

to credit standing, and loss of health; and (t) attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants

complain the Intervenor Plaintiffs' damages disclosures do not comply with Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure Rule 26 (a)(1)(C).

After examining the documents filed with this Court, I conclude the Intervenor

A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 215 Filed 02/21/2001 Page 2 of 2
.-
Plaintiffs have not met the damages disclosure demands of Rule 26 at this point in the case. Intervenor Plaintiffs are directed to provide Defendants with reasonable estimates for damages sought from Defendants and any documentation used to determine these estimates for (a) back pay damages, (b) damages associated with the costs for seeking new employment, (c) front pay damages, and (d) non-economic compensatory damages. Intervenor Plaintiffs are also reminded of their continuing duty to supplement. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Motion to Compel Complete Damages Disclosures (doc. 58) is GRANTED. 2. Intervenor Plaintiffs, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, and Melissa Scarborough, are directed to provide Defendants with reasonable estimates for damages sought from Defendants and any documentation used to determine these estimates for (a) back pay damages, (b) damages associated with the costs for seeking new employment, (c) front pay damages, and (d) non-economic compensatory damages within 30 days from the date of this order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida on this 1-1day of February, 2001.
~~~
Mark A. Pizzo United States Magistrate Judge Copies to: Counsel of Record
2
A072A (Rev.8182)

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 217 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 1 of 2

-'
J

'-..../ f""w

!::"ff.. ~D

\}h>~ UNITED ST4fteS DISTRICT COURT ...
MIDDLTEADMJSPTARIDCNTIOSIFOFNLORIDAOI APR -6 AM to: 02

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

",'jLi!lU!LIET{,ADMUjPSSAT.rG~FfI"lCTO/'¥~IrL"O-I~

,V.:0riT LORIO/I

Plaintiff,

vs.

CASE NO.8: 99-CV-1371-T-17MAP

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC.• and INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC., and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/bla RIO BRAVO CANTINA,

Defendants . ______________________________1

ORDER Before the Court is the Defendants' amended motion to compel answers to Defendants' third set of interrogatories (doc. 173) and Defendants' amended motion to compel Plaintiff Sheri Calvo's answers to Defendants' second set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents (doc. 174). For the reasons stated at today' s hearing, and for the reasons set forth below, it is ORDERED: 1. The Defendants' amended motion to compel answers to Defendants' third set of interrogatories (doc. 173) is GRANTED. The Plaintiff EEOC is to provide the Defendants with answers to intem:igatories one, two, and three within 30 days of this order. As explained at the h~=regarding the scope of the response to interrogatory one, to the extent the EEOC intends to introduce at trial evidence demonstrating a pattern

A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 217 Filed 04/06/2001 Page 2 of 2 ·
j
of sexual harassment, it should describe that pattern, outline the period of conduct, and identify the witnesses it may call at trial to support the claims. If the EEOC intends to highlight particular instances within this pattern of misconduct, it should describe the event, the approximate date, and the witnesses it may call to support the allegations.!
2. The Defendants' amended motion to compel Plaintiff Sheri Calvo's answers to Defendants' second set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents (doc. 174) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida on April 4, 2ool.
MARK A. PIZZO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: Counsel of Record

A072A (Rev.8182)

1 As noted at the

• requests are contention interrogatories.

Such interrogatories are

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(c) and serve to clarify and

narrow the issues for trial. See

v. Correctional Medical Systems. Inc., 144 F.3d

418,421 (6th Cir. 1998); Manual/or Complex Litigation. Third (1995) at § 21.461.

2

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 224

Filed 07/11/2001 Page 1 of 4
rv'-
FILED ~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

oI JUL I I AM 10: 05

L'1__,~-I.I•.. . •

U CJ I •. , 1 > RT

,'110ULE DIS i i<ICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA. FLOnlDA

Plaintiff,

and

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK and MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC. and INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC., and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/bla RIO BRAVO CANTINA,

Defendants.
_________________________1

ORDER In an order dated October 31, 2000 (see doc. 97), this Court denied the Defendants' motions to require the Plaintiffs Calvo, Ferek, and Scarborough to submit to mental examinations. In short, the Defendants had not made the showing demanded by FED. R. CIV. P. 35. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964). Since these events, however, each Plaintiff has notified the Defendants she is seeking at least $1,000,000 in non-economic damages. Consequently, the Defendants have renewed their request for mental examinations and propose that a forensic psychologist and a forensic psychiatrist evaluate each Plaintiff (doc. 219). The Plaintiffs Calvo, Ferek, and Scarborough object (doc. 222); so does the EEOC (doc. 223). After consideration, I find the Defendants have

A072A (Rev.8J82)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 224 Filed 07/11/2001 Page 2 of 4

A072A (Rev.8I82)

presented new information not available at the time of the original request for mental examinations. I also find the Defendants have made the necessary showing under Rule 35; accordingly, the Defendants' motion is granted. I
Rule 35 requires a defendant to show the plaintiffs mental or physical condition is "in controversy" and "good cause" exists for ordering the tests. Schlagenhauf, supra. In summary, the Plaintiffs contend nothing has really changed since the Court denied the Defendants' first Rule 35 motions. For example, they emphasize, like before, they will not offer expert testimony at trial to support their demand for non-economic damages. Moreover, they argue the significant amounts they claim here, amounts they revealed only after the Court denied the Defendants' first motion, do not put their mental states "in controversy." This Court disagrees. The substantial non-economic damages the Plaintiffs ask for alters the landscape. Just because the Plaintiffs do not intend to offer experts to support their non-economic damages does not mean they have not placed their mental state at issue. See Ali v. Wang Laboratories, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 165, 167-68 (M.D. Fla. 1995) ("While plaintiff [who seeks substantial damages for his alleged emotional injuries] may be content to offer only his own testimony to a jury, defendant is not compelled to limit its case to mere cross examination). The Defendants should have a reasonable opportunity to challenge each Plaintiffs claim for non-economic damages. Id. Therefore, it is
I Generally, courts have cited the following reasons when reconsidering prior rulings: (1) the controlling law has changed; (2) new evidence becomes available; or (3) a need exists to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See e.g., Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689 (M.D. Fla. 1994). In any event, the decision to reconsider is within a court's sound discretion and will not be overturned on appeal absent abuse of discretion. See Region 8 Forest Service Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 800, 806 (11th Cir. 1993)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 224 Filed 07/11/2001 Page 3 of 4
ORDERED: 1. The Defendant's Renewed Motion to Compel Mental Examination (doc. 219) is GRANTED. 2. The Plaintiffs Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, and Melissa Scarborough are ordered to undergo mental evaluations by Defendants' experts, Randy K. Otto, Ph.D. and Barbara A. Stein, M.D., at dates and times which are mutually convenient to all parties. The Defendants should endeavor to accomplish the testing and clinical interviews of a Plaintiff by the Defendants' experts on the same day and at the same place. If the parties are unable to agree as to the date, time, and conditions of the exams, they should advise the Court. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida on July 10, 2001.
MARK A. PIZZO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: Counsel of Record
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP F

Document I LE

2C2O 4

P

FYiled 07/11/2001

Page 4 of 4

Date Printed: 07/11/2001

Notice sent to:
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Scott T. Silverman, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Christopher D. Gray, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 246 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMl\flSSION,

)

)

F I LED

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK and )

Tame
CLERK, u.S. I ICT COURT MIDOLE OIST leT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA, FLORIDA

MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

)

)

Intervener Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Case No. 99-1371-CIV-T-17A

)

)

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC. and )

INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS ) INC. and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, )

INC. d/b/a RIO BRAVO CANTINA

)

)

DefendantslThird-Party Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ROBERT EVANS,

)

)

Third-Party Defendant

)

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

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST ROBERT EVANS

Defendantsffhird-Party Plaintiffs Rio Bravo International, Inc., Innovative

Restaurant Concepts, Inc., and Applebee's International, Inc. ("Third-Party Plaintiffs"),

by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 14(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.,

hereby file this Third-Party Complaint Against Robert Evans ("Evans").

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 246 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 2 of 6
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Evans is a citizen of the State of Florida, residing within the Middle District of Florida and thus is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. 2. Applebee's International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. 3. Rio Bravo International, Inc. is a Kansas corporation. 4. Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. is a Georgia Corporation. 5. This is an action for monetary damages in excess of $75,000. The Court thus has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 6. The Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 in that the claims raised herein are so related to the claims raised in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") and the Intervenor Plaintiffs' Complaints that they form part of the same case or controversy. 7. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have occurred. 9. On or about July 1994, Evans began his employment at the Rio Bravo Cantina in Clearwater, Florida as a bartender. 10. On or about October 1996, Evans entered into the Manager in Training program at the South Tampa Rio Bravo Cantina.
2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 246 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 3 of 6
11. On or about January 1997, Evans completed the Manager in Training program and was transferred back to the Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina as an assistant manager.
12. On or about March 13, 1998, Evans was terminated from his employment at the Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina.
13. Mr. Evans was terminated after allegations of acting improperly towards female crewmembers were raised against him, which allegations were investigated by the Third-Party Plaintiffs.
14. On or about April 19, 1998, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, and Melissa Scarborough ("Intervenors") filed charges of sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against the Third-Party Plaintiffs.
15. Subsequently, on or about July 6, 1999 the EEOC filed this action against the Third-Party Plaintiffs claiming that Evans sexually harassed the Intervenors as well as numerous unidentified "similarly situated" female crewmembers. [See Docket, Complaint, Jury Trial Demand, Injunctive Relief Sought, '11.g.]
16. The EEOC claims that the Third-Party Plaintiffs have violated Title VII and is seeking extensive monetary damages as well as injunctive relief against the Defendants.
17. On or about July 15, 1999, the Intervenors served their Motion to Intervene. The motion was granted on November 5, 1999.
18. The Intervenors claim that the Third-Party Plaintiffs have violated Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act and are seeking extensive monetary damages. Their
3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 246 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 4 of 6
complaint is also based on alleged extensive verbal and physical sexual harassment by Evans.
19. The Third-Party Plaintiffs in this action are potentially subject to significant monetary damages as a result of Evans' alleged behavior.
20. The Rio Bravo Cantina had an established policy against sexual and other forms of harassment.
21. Evans was aware of the policies. COUNT I - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
22. The Third-Party Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 8-21 above. 23. As a managerial employee of the Rio Bravo Cantina, Evans owed a fiduciary duty to act in the Third Party Plaintiffs' best interests. 24. In the event some or all of the allegations raised by the EEOC and Intervenors against Evans are proven, such actions would constitute a breach of Evans' duty to the Third-Party Plaintiffs, because Evans would be found to have been promoting his own self-interest, at the expense of the Third Party Plaintiffs in contravention to stated policies against harassment, while still employed at the restaurant. 25. As a result of any such breach of duty by Evans, the Third-Party Plaintiffs may suffer significant damages. 26. In the event the allegations against Evans are proven, Evans' breach of his duty to the Third-Party Plaintiffs would be the direct cause of any harm suffered by the Third-Party Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE the Third-Party Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment for damages against Evans, including such amounts as may be awarded to
4

------------------------------------------
Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 246 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 5 of 6
EEOC and the Intervenors against the Third-Party Plaintiffs, should the Third-Party Plaintiffs be found liable to the EEOC and Intervenors.
COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 27. The Third-Party Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 8-21 above. 28. As a member of management at the Clearwater Rio Bravo, Evans had an implied employment contract with the Third-Party Plaintiffs. 29. This implied employment contract required Evans to perform his duties in a manner consistent with the Third-Party Plaintiffs' policy, including the policy prohibiting sexual harassment. 30. In the event that some or all of the allegations raised by the EEOC and Intervenors against Evans are proven, such actions would constitute a breach of Evans' implied employment contract with the Third-Party Plaintiffs. 31. The Third-Party Plaintiffs will or may suffer damages. Evans has breached his implied employment contract by taking the actions alleged by EEOC and Intervenors. WHEREFORE the Third-Party Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court Order Evans to make whole the Third-Party Plaintiffs should they be found liable to the EEOC and/or the Intervenors.
JURy TRIAL DEMAND The Third-Party Plaintiffs request a jury trial in this matter.
5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 246 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 6 of 6

.. ~
Peter W. Zinober Florida Bar No. 121750
w~~
Erich Y. Sch ltz Florida Bar No. 0154466 ZINOBER& McCREA, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 224-9004 (telephone) (813) 223-4881 (facsimile) Attorneys for defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that an original of the foregoing Third-Party Complaint

L Against Robert Evans has been served by regular U.S. Mail this

day of June 2000

to Michael J. Farrell, Esq., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami District

Office, Two South Biscayne Boulevard, One Biscayne Tower, Miami, Florida 33131 and

Christopher D. Gray, Esq., Florin, Roebig, Walker, Huddlestun & Rogers, P.A., 777

Alderman Road, Palm Harbor, Florida 34683.

H:\ERICH\AppJebee's\PJeadings\Third Party CompJainldoc

6

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 1 of 56

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F ' L E D FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

~AR 18

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK AND

)

MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC. and

)

INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, )

INC. and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL,

)

INC. d/b/a RIO BRAVO CANTINA, and

)

CHEVYS, INC.

)

)

Defendants.

)

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

Date CLERK, \J S. LTRICT COURT" MIDDLE. 0 T ":T OF FLORID TAM A, FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-13 71-CIV-T-17A
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil
Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis ofsex and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater particularity in paragraph 11, the Commission alleges that Ms. Calvo, Ms. Ferek, Ms. Scarborough and similarly situated individuals were subjected to sexual harassment by Robert Evans, a management official of the Defendant corporations. The Commission further alleges that Defendants subsequently retaliated against Ms. Calvo, Ms. Ferek and Ms. Scarborough for
(A1\1

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 2 of 56
complaining ofthe unlawful sexual harassment by sUbjecting them to adverse terms and conditions of employment, discharge and/or constructive discharge.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VIT of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3) ("Title VIT"), and Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction ofthe Untied States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VIT, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and
(3) ofTitle vn, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Rio Bravo International, Inc. has continuously been doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Clearwater, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. has continuously been doing business in the State ofFlorida and the City of Clearwater, and has continuously had at least 15 employees
6. At all relevant times, Applebee's International, Inc. has continuously been doing
2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 3 of 56
business in the State of Florida and the City of Clearwater, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant Chevys, Inc., (the "Successor Employer") has been a California-based corporation doing business in the State ofFlorida and the City ofClearwater and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
8. At all relevant times, Defendant Chevys, Inc. has been a "successor employer" within the meaning of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964. EEOC v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers. Inc., 503 F.2d 1086 (6th Cir. 1974).
9. At all relevant times Rio Bravo International, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h).
10. At all relevant times Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h).
11. At all relevant times, Applebee's International, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
12. At all relevant times, Chevys, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 13. More than thirty days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, Sheri Calvo, Veronica
3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 4 of 56
Ferek and Melissa Scarborough each filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle
vn by Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
14. Since at least February of 1996, Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Clearwater, Florida location in violation of Section 703(a) and Section
704(a) of Title vn, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a) and §2000e-3(a).
a. Sheri Calvo was subjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment.
b. Defendants retaliated against Sheri Calvo for complaining of the unlawful sexual harassment by subjecting her to adverse terms and conditions of employment, including unfavorable work schedules and job assignments, and subsequently discharging her from her position.
c. Veronica Ferek was subjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment.
d. Defendants retaliated against Veronica Ferek for complaining ofthe unlawful
4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 5 of 56

sexual harassment by forcing her to resign her position.

e. Melissa Scarborough was subjected to sexual harassment by Assistant

Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal

conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to

constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment.

Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should

have known ofthe sexual harassment.

f.

Defendants retaliated against Melissa Scarborough for complaining of the

unlawful sexual harassment by discharging her from her position.

g. Other similarly situated female employees ofthe Defendants were subjected

to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of

unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was

sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and

offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective

action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment.

15. The effect ofthe conduct complained of in paragraph 11 above has been to deprive

Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated females of equal

employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because oftheir

sex and/or in retaliation for their opposition to unlawful employment practices..

16. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 11 above were

intentional.

17. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 11 above were

5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 6 of 56
done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, theirofficers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in sexual harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and/or opposition to an unlawful employment practice. B. Order Defendants, to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendants to make whole Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals byproviding appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement and rightful place promotion or front pay. D. Order Defendants to make whole Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 11 above, including out of pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendants to make whole Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough
6

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 7 of 56
and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 11 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendants to pay Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 11 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURy TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
C. GREGORY STEWART General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney GILBERT CARRILLO Supervisory Trial Attorney
MICHAEL J. FARRELL Trial Attorney FL Bar No. 0053228
7

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 8 of 56 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Miami District Office Two South Biscayne Boulevard One Biscayne Tower Miami, Florida 33131 Phone - (305) 530-6008 Facsimile - (305) 536-4494
8

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 9 of 56
EXHIBITB

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 10 of 56

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

2

TAMPA DIVISION

3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
4 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
5
Plaintiff,
6
and
7
SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK 8 and MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

9 10 vs.

Intervenor Plaintiffs,

Case No. 99-1371-CIV-T-17A

11 RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., and INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT
12 CONCEPTS, INC., and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a
13 RIO BRAVO CANTINA,

14

Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

15

16
DEPOSITION OF: 17
TAKEN:
18
DATE: 19
PLACE: 20
21

RENE BROWN
By Counsel for Defendants
June 13, 2000
Zinober & McCrea Suite 800 201 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida

22 TIME:

Beginning at 1:40 p.m.

23 REPORTED BY:

24

25

1775 TAMPA CITY CENTER TAMPA, FLORIDA 33802

DREYER Be ASSOCjAIIt'I'"E!!S"~ "--C~W~P~IC~E~B-O-t 1ii8l2

COURT REPORTERS

TAMP'A. I'U)lUDA 3380 1

(813) 229-1 545

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 11 of 56 2

1 APPEARANCES:

2

CARLA VON GREIFF, ESQUIRE

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

3

Room 1020

501 East Polk Street

4

Tampa, Florida 33602

Attorney for Plaintiff

5

CHRISTOPHER D. GRAY, ESQUIRE

6

Florin, Roebig, Walker, Huddlestun & Rogers

777 Alderman Road

7

Palm Harbor, Florida 34683

Attorney for Intervenor Plaintiffs

8

ERICH Y. SCHULTZ, ESQUIRE

9

Zinober & McCrea

Suite 800

10

201 East Kennedy Boulevard

Tampa, Florida 33602

11

Attorney for Defendants

12 Also Present:

13

Jay Lechner, Law Clerk

14

INDEX

15 Examination by Mr. Schultz
16
Examination by Mr. Gray 17
Examination by Ms. VonGreiff 18
Examination by Mr. Schultz
19
Certificate of Reporter 20

PAGE
3
107
125 130 146

21 EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION:

~ DESCRIPTION

22

1 Crewmember Handbook

23

2 Handwritten statement dated February

24

24, 1998

PAGE 23
78"

25 3 Handwritten statement dated March 22,

1998

95

'775 T"....." CITY CENTER T"M"". FLORIDA 33&02

DREYER Be ASSOCIATES
COURT RUORTERS
(813) 229·1545

a I"OST ewJrJc:It IIOX . . .
T"M"". nOfllD" 3380.

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 12 of 56
3

1

The deposition of RENE BROWN was taken

2 pursuant to notice by counsel for the Defendants

3 on the 13th day of June, 2000, commencing at

4 1:40 p.m., at the offices of Zinober & McCrea,

5 Suite 800, 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa,

6 Florida. Said deposition was reported by Terri

7 Dukes, Registered Professional Reporter, Notary

8 Public, State of Florida at Large.

9

10

RENE BROWN,

11 a witness, having been duly sworn to tell the

12 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,

13 was examined and testified as follows:

14

EXAMINATION

15 BY MR. SCHULTZ:

16

Q

Could you please state your name for the

17 record?

18

A

Rene Brown.

19

Q

Rene, my name is Erich Schultz, and I

20 represent Rio Bravo and the defendants in this

21 matter. Have you ever had your deposition taken

22 before?

23

A

No.

24

Q

Basically it's a series of questions

25 that I will ask you and you respond. If you need

1775 T AM~A CITY CENTER TA~A. FLORIDA 33502

DREYER Be ASSOCIATES
COURT RIEJIORTEItS (813) 229· 1!54S

~T OPPlCE BOX 1482 TAM~A.I'LORIDA 33501

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 13 of 56 125

1

Q

You said he's Cuban?

2

A

I believe he's Cuban. No. I'm sorry.

3 He's Venezuelan. But Glenn says that all Spanish

4 people are the same, no matter what country

5 they're from. So he asked him if he -- like Gian

6 Carlo will walk out of the kitchen, and he'll say

7 "How long did it take you to swim here?" just

8 comments like that. And Gian Carlo was a little

9 upset about it.

10

MR. GRAY: I appreciate your time.

11

Thanks.

12

EXAMINATION

13 BY MS. VON GREIFF:

14

Q

Rene, you testified earlier that you had

15 not retained the EEOC. Is it your intention to

16 have the EEOC represent your interests in this

17 lawsuit?

18

A

Yes.

19

Q

Okay. How old were you when you started

20 at Rio Bravo?

21

A

Eighteen.

22

Q

Were you there when Chevy's bought Rio

23 Bravo?

24

A

Yes.

25

Q

Did the management change?

1775 TA_A CITY CENTER TAMPA. FLORIDA 33602

DREYER Be ASSOCIATES
COURT REPORTERS
(813) 229·1 545

POST O.....c:E BOX 1".2 TAIoPA. FLORIOA 334501

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 14 of 56 126

1

A

No.

2

Q

You also stated earlier that about 30

3 times you were locked in a linen closet and the

4 liquor room. Why did you have to go to Rob to go

5 to the linen closet or the liquor room?

6

A

Because there was padlocks that you

7 needed a key for, and only the managers carried

8 them. So if you needed linen or a bottle of

9 liquor to replenish the bar, you had to go to the

10 manager and have them open the room for you.

11

Q

On these occasions, was there anybody

12 else

any other way that you could have gone

13 into those rooms to get the things that you needed

14 for work?

15

A

A lot of times, like I said before, he's

16 the only manager in the restaurant. So there was

17 no other key at the restaurant at the time.

18

Q

Okay. You also mentioned that you

19 complained to several managers, you know, first

20 when he was a bartender, then when he was a

21 manager. Did you think that they were going to

22 take care of the problem for you?

23

A

I was under the impression that it was

24 being taken care of.

25

Q

Did the behavior ever stop?

1775 TAMPA CITY CENTER TAMPA. FLORIDA 33602

DREYER Be ASSOCIATES
COURT RPORTERS (813) 229-1545

a ~T 0f'JrIC1: IIOX l . .
TAMP,..P'LORIDA 334101

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 15 of 56

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK AND

)

MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC. and

)

INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, )

INC. and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL,

)

INC. d/b/a RIO BRAVO CANTINA

)

)

Defendants.

)

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-13 71-CIV-T-17A

DECLARATION OF CARLA VON GREIFF

1. I, Carla Von Greiff, am a trial attorney with the Tampa Area Office of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

2. On June 14,2000, I attended the deposition of Michelle Greene.

5. During the deposition, Ms. Greene testified that she was employed by Rio Bravo at the time Chevys took over. Additionally, Ms. Greene testified that after Chevys took over Rio

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 16 of 56 Bravo, the management stayed the same.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

~ V60J-i~,~
Carla Von Greiff Executed pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §1746.

7/Z/bo:;,
July 7,2000

------

-

---------

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 17 of 56

EXHIBIT C

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 18 of 56

UNITED STATES DISTRTCT COURT

....

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK AND MBLISSA SCARBOROUGH,

PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

CASE NO.

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

AND INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT

CONCEPTS, INC. AND APPLEBEE'S

INTERNATIONAL, INC. D/B/A

RIO BRAVO CANTINA,

99-1371-CIV-T-17A

__________D_E_F_E_N_D_A_N_T_S_.______________1

DEPONENT: TAKEN: PLACE:
DATE: TIME: REPORTED BY:

BENN IRWIN
PURSUANT TO NOTICE BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
FLORIN, ROEBIG & WALKER, PA. 777 ALDERMAN ROAD PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA 34683
FEBRUARY 22, 2000
BEGAN: 10:08 A.M. ENDED: 4:35 P.M.
JAMES M. SPANGLER, RMR REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE

o·

THE REPORTERS GROUP, INC. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. - Ste. 711 - Tampa, Florida
(813)-228-8561 Fax (813)-228-0954

33602

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 19 of 56 2

1

APPEARA)vcES:

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS:

2

THOMAS ROBBIG, BSQUIRB

3

FLORIN, ROEBIG, WALKER, HUDDLESTUN &

ROGERS, PA

4

777 ALDERMAN ROAD

PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA 34683

5

727-786-5000

6

MICHABL J. FARRBLL, BSQUIRB

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

7

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

MIAMI DISTRICT OFFICE

8

ONE BISCAYNE TOWER

2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD - STE. 2700

9

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-1805

305-536-4494

10

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS:

11

PBTBR W. ZINOBBR, BSQUIRB

12

BRICH Y. SCHULTZ, BSQUIRB

ZINOBER & MCCREA

13

SOUTHTRUST PLAZA

201 E. KENNEDY BOULEVARD - STE. 800

14

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33601-1378

813-224-9004

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

I
\ ,

25

THB RBPORTBRS GROUP, INC. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. - Ste. 711 - Tampa, Florida 33602
(813)-228-8561 Fax (813)-228-0954

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 20 of 56 3

1

* * * * * *

INDEX

2

PAGE

EXAMINATION:

3 BY MR. ROEBIG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4

* * * * *

5

EXHIBITS

6

PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 1 · . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

7

PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 2 · . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 3 · . . . . . . . . . . .. 162

8

PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 4 · . . . . . . . . . . .. 183

PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 5 · . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

9

PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 6 · . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 7 · . . . . . . . . .... 242

10

* * * * *

11

STIPULATION

274

12

DBPONBNT SIGNATURB PAGB . . . . . . . . . . . 275

BRRATA SHBBT ...................... 276

13

CBRTIFICATB OF OATH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

CBRTIFICATE OF REPORTBR ........... 278

14

* * * * *
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 241

\ ,---

25

THE REPORTERS GROUP, INC. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. - Ste. 711 - Tampa, Florida
(813)-228-8561 Fax (813)-228-0954

33602

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 21 of 56 4

1

THE- DEPONENT HEREIN,

2

BENN IRWIN,

3

BEING FIRST DULY SWORN TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE

4

WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, WAS

5

EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

6

EXAMINATION

7

BY MR. ROEBIG:

8

Q.

STATE YOUR NAME.

9

A.

BENN IRWIN.

10

Q.

MR. IRWIN, WHERE DO YOU WORK, SIR?

11

A.

I WORK FOR CHEVYS, INCORPORATED.

12

Q.

WHAT DO YOU DO FOR CHEVYS?

13

A.

I'M A FRANCHISE OPERATIONS MANAGER.

14

Q.

SIR, YOU'LL HAVE TO SPEAK LOUDER.

15

A.

FRANCHISE OPERATIONS MANAGER.

16

Q.

WHERE?

17

A.

I OPERATE ELEVEN DIFFERENT STATES.

18

Q.

WHEN DID YOU START WORKING FOR CHEVYS?

19

A.

WHEN THE COMPANY WAS PURCHASED.

20

Q.

WHAT COMPANY WAS PURCHASED?

21

A.

THE COMPANY I WORKED FOR PREVIOUSLY WAS

22

PURCHASED BY CHEVYS.

23

Q.

WHAT COMPANY WAS THAT?

24

A.

I WORKED FOR RIO BRAVO.

25

Q.

WHEN WERE THEY PURCHASED? DO YOU KNOW?

THB RBPORTBRS GROUP, INC. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. - Ste. 711 - Tampa, Florida
(813)-228-8561 Fax (813)-228-0954

33602

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 22 of 56 5

1

A~

I DON'T KNOW THE E~CT DATE, BUT I KNOW

2

AN APPROXIMATE DATE.

3

Q.

OKAY, THAT'S FINE.

4

A.

APRIL OF 1999.

5

Q.

I'M SORRY?

6

A.

APRIL OF 1999?

7

Q.

WHEN YOU WERE WORKING FOR RIO BRAVO, DO

8

YOU KNOW THE CORPORATE NAME OF THE ENTITY THAT

9

EMPLOYED YOU?

10

A.

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, I BELIEVE.

11

Q.

WHEN RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL WAS

12 PURCHASED BY CHEVYS, WHAT WAS YOUR POSITION AT RIO

13

BRAVO?

14

A.

FRANCHISE CONSULTANT.

15

Q.

AND WHERE DID YOU WORK AT THAT TIME?

16

A.

I WAS CONSIDERED A HOME OFFICE EMPLOYEE

17 OUT OF THE ATLANTA OFFICE.

18

Q.

WHERE DOES JOHN MOORE WORK?

19

A.

OUT OF THE ATLANTA OFFICE.

20

Q.

IS THE CURRENT POSITION THAT YOU HOLD

21

WITH CHEVYS A PROMOTION FROM WHERE YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY

22 BEEN WORKING?

23

A.

NO. JUST A DIFFERENT NAME. SAME JOB.

24

Q.

SAME PAY?

25

A.

I'VE RECEIVED A RAISE.

" THE REPORTERS GROUP, INC.

501 E. Kennedy Blvd. - Ste. 711 - Tampa, Florida 33602

(813)-228-8561 Fax (813)-228-0954

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 23 of 56
,
UNITBD STATBS DISTR~T COURT MIDDLB DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

BQUAL BMPLOYMBNT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, SHBRI CALVO, VBRONICA FBRBK AND MBLISSA SCARBOROUGH,

PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

CASB NO.

RIO BRAVO INTBRNATIONAL, INC.,

AND INNOVATIVB RBSTAURANT

CONCBPTS, INC. AND APPLBBBB'S

INTBRNATIONAL, INC. D/B/A

RIO BRAVO CANTINA,

99-1371-CIV-T-17A

__________D_E_F_EN_D_A_N_T_S_. _____________1

DEPONENT: TAKEN: PLACE:
DATE: TIME: REPORTED BY:

COTE TURNER
PURSUANT TO NOTICE BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
FLORIN, ROEBIG & WALKER, PA. 777 ALDERMAN ROAD PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA 34683
JANUARY 27, 2000
BEGAN: 10:00 A.M. ENDED: 2:35 P.M.
JAMES M. SPANGLER, RMR REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE

<"

THB RBPORTBRS GROUP, INC. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. - Ste. 711 - Tampa, Florida
(813)-228-8561 Fax (813)-228-0954

33602

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 24 of 56 2

1

APPEARA~CES :

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS:

2

THOMAS ROBBIG, BSQUIRB

3

FLORIN, ROEBIG, WALKER, HUDDLESTUN &

ROGERS, PA

4

777 ALDERMAN ROAD

PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA 34683

5

727-786-5000

6

MICHABL J. FARRBLL, BSQUIRB

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

7

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

MIAMI DISTRICT OFFICE

8

ONE BISCAYNE TOWER

2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD - STE. 2700

9

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-1805

305-536-4494 10

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS:

11 PBTBR W. ZINOBBR, BSQUIRB

12

ZINOBER & MCCREA

SOUTHTRUST PLAZA

13

201 E. KENNEDY BOULEVARD - STE. 800

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33601-1378

14

813-224-9004

* * * * * *

15

INDBX

16 BXAMINATION:

PAGE

17

BY MR. ROEBIG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

*** * *

18

BXHIBITS

. . . . PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 1

. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 50

19

PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 2 .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. 60

PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 3 . .. . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. .. . 65

20

PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 4 . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . 111

PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 5 .......................... 116

211

PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 6 . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . . 159

PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBIT 7 .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . 170

22

*** * *

STIPULATION

176

23

DEPONBNT SIGNATURE PAGB . . . . . . . . . . . 177

BRRATA SHBBT ...................... 178

24

CBRTIFICATB OF OATH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER . . . . . . . . . ,. 180

(

25

THE REPORTERS GROUP, INC. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. - Ste. 711 - Tampa, Florida 33602
(813)-228-8561 Fax (813)-228-0954

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 25 of 56 3

1

TH"E:-' DEPONENT HEREIN,

2

COTE TURNER,

3

BEING FIRST DULY SWORN TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE

4

WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, WAS

5

EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

6

EXAMINATION

7

BY MR. ROEBIG:

8

Q.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.

9

A.

COTE TURNER.

10

Q.

HOW OLD ARE YOU, MR. TURNER?

11

A.

33.

12

Q.

SAY IT AGAIN?

13

A.

33.

14

Q.

SORRY. THIS ROOM HAS A TENDENCY TO PULL

15

YOUR VOICE UP, SO IF YOU COULD

16

A.

I'M SORRY. I'M 34. I JUST TURNED 34.

17

Q.

WHAT'S YOUR RESIDENCE ADDRESS?

18

A.

2684 EGRETS LANDING DRIVE, LAKE MARY,

19

FLORIDA.

20

Q.

LAKE MARY?

21

A.

YES.

22

Q.

WHERE IS THAT?

23

A.

NEAR ORLANDO.

24

Q.

WHAT'S YOUR ZIP CODE?

25

A.

32746.

THE REPORTERS GROUP, INC. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. - Ste. 711 - Tampa, Florida
(813)-228-8561 Fax (813)-228-0954

33602

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 26 of 56 4

1

HAVE YOU GIVEN A DEPOSITION BEFORE?

2

A.

NO.

3

Q.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE UNDER OATH. WE'LL

4

START WITH THAT.

5

SECOND, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A SERIES OF

6 QUESTIONS. SOME OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE ABOUT

7

YOURSELF, SOME OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE ABOUT YOUR

8 EMPLOYMENT, YOUR EMPLOYER, THE POLICIES OF YOUR

9

EMPLOYER, WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT CONDUCT THAT MAY HAVE

10

OCCURRED AT STORE 316 AND THINGS LIKE THAT. ALL

11

RIGHT?

12'

A.

(WITNESS SHAKES HEAD.)

13

Q.

DO YOUR BEST TO GIVE ME FULL AND TRUTHFUL

14 ANSWERS.

15

IF YOU DON'T HEAR ONE OF THE QUESTIONS

16 THAT I ASK YOU FULLY, TELL ME THAT AND I'LL REPEAT IT

17 UNTIL YOU HEAR IT. OKAY?

18

A.

OKAY.

19

Q.

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ONE OF THE

20

QUESTIONS THAT I ASK YOU TODAY, MR. TURNER, TELL ME

I

21

THAT, AS WELL, OR ONE OF THE WORDS THAT I USE, JUST

221 TELL ME THAT BEFORE YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION. OKAY?

23

A.

(WITNESS SHAKES HEAD.) OKAY.

Q.

BECAUSE IF YOU ANSWER ME, I'M GOING TO

25

PRESUME THAT YOU HEARD ME AND YOU FULLY UNDERSTOOD ME.

THB RBPORTERS GROUP, INC. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. - Ste. 711 - Tampa, Florida 33602
(813)-228-8561 Fax (813)-228-0954

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 27 of 56 5

1

WOULD

~
THAT

BE

FAIR?

2

A.

SURE.

3

Q.

WHO DO YOU WORK FOR?

4

A.

I WORK FOR RIO BRAVO.

5

Q.

WHAT'S THE CORPORATION THAT YOU WORK FOR?

6

A.

CHEVYS, INCORPORATED.

7

Q.

SPELL THAT.

8

A.

C-H-E-V-Y-S.

9

Q.

HOW LONG HAVE YOU WORKED FOR CHEVYS,

10

INCORPORATED?

11

A.

SINCE APRIL OF 1999.

12

Q.

OKAY. WHEN I ASKED YOU BEFORE WHO YOU

13

WORKED FOR ORIGINALLY AND YOU SAID RIO BRAVO, WHY DID

14

YOU SAY THAT?

15

A.

THAT'S THE NAME OF THE RESTAURANT COMPANY

16

THAT IS OWNED BY CHEVYS.

17

Q.

WHAT'S THE CORPORATE NAME OF RIO BRAVO?

18

A.

CHEVYS, INCORPORATED.

19

Q.

SAY THAT AGAIN.

20

A.

CHEVYS, INCORPORATED. THAT'S THE PARENT

21

COMPANY THAT OWNS RIO BRAVO.

22

Q.

IS RIO BRAVO A CORPORATION?

23

A.

NO.

24

Q.

I MEAN, IS IT RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL,

(

25

INC.?

THE REPORTERS GROUP, INC. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. - Ste. 711 - Tampa, Florida 33602
(813)-228-8561 Fax (813)-228-0954

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 28 of 56 6

1

A ':-"

NOT ANYMORE.

2

Q.

WHY DON'T WE DO THIS: WHY DON'T YOU TELL

3

ME WHAT YOUR WORK HISTORY HAS BEEN SINCE, SAY, YOU

4

STOPPED YOUR FORMAL EDUCATION.

5

A.

OKAY.

6

Q.

WHEN WOULD YOU HAVE STOPPED YOUR FORMAL

7

EDUCATION?

8

A.

1988.

9

Q.

AND WHAT'S THE EXTENT OF YOUR EDUCATION?

10

A.

I HAVE A DEGREE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF

11

GEORGIA.

12

Q.

IN WHAT?

13

A.

ECONOMICS.

14

Q.

DID YOU SAY 1998 OR '88?

15

A.

'88.

16

Q.

OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?

17

A.

YES.

18

Q.

WHAT WAS YOUR DEGREE IN?

19

A.

ECONOMICS.

20

Q.

OKAY. WHAT KIND OF A DEGREE WAS THAT?

21

IN OTHER WORDS, BA, MASTER'S DEGREE, DOCTORATE?

221

A.

JUST A FOUR - YEAR DEGREE.

23

Q.

OKAY. FOR WHOM DID YOU WORK WHEN YOU

24

LEFT THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA?

(

25

A.

I WORKED FOR RIO BRAVO.

THE REPORTERS GROUP, INC. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. - Ste. 711 - Tampa, Florida
(813)-228-8561 Fax (813)-228-0954

33602

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 29 of 56 108

1

OKAY. WOULD IT BE ~IR TO SAY THAT WHEN

2 CHEVYS INTERNATIONAL CAME IN AND PURCHASED THE

3 CORPORATION FOR WHICH YOU WORKED, APPLEBEE'S,

4 BASICALLY ALL THE MANAGERS STAYED IN PLACE, THE

5 EMPLOYEES STAYED IN PLACE?

6

A.

AT THE TIME OF WHEN WE --

7

Q.

UH-HUH.

8

A.

SOME -- NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE.

9

Q.

THE MAJORITY -- WOULD THE MAJORITY OF THE

10 MANAGEMENT TEAM HAVE STAYED IN PLACE AT THE STORE

11 LEVEL?

12

A.

YES.

13

Q.

PRETTY MUCH THE SAME MANAGERS IN THE

14 STORES AS BEFORE?

15

A.

YES.

16

Q.

OKAY. NOW, WITH REGARD TO RIO BRAVO,

17 DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THAT TIME FRAME, AND

18 SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE TRAINING REGARDING

19 SEXUAL HARASSMENT, CAN YOU RECALL BEING EDUCATED OR

20

TAUGHT THAT VERBAL COMMENTS OF A SEXUALLY-SUGGESTED

21

NATURE ARE SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

22

A.

YES.

23

Q.

WERE YOU TAUGHT, SIMILARLY, THAT TOUCHING

24 IN UNWELCOMED AND SEXUALLY-SUGGESTING OR INTIMIDATING

25 MANNER WAS SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

THB RBPORTBRS GROUP, INC. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. - Ste. 711 - Tampa, Florida 33602
{813}-228-8561 Fax {813}-228-0954

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 30 of 56
EXHIBITD

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MA~PHARDGoEcuOmFeDntIS2C4R7 IMIFNilAeTd I0t,3./18/2002

This form is affeaed by the Privacy Ad of 19~~ Privacy AD. Statement before
OOOfleling this form.

AGENCY
- ~ FEPA
~ EEOC

Page 31 of 56
CHARGE NUMBER

State or local agency, ifany:

Florida Commission On Human Relations and EEOC

Name (IndIcate Mr., Mrs., Ms.)

HOME TELEPHONE (Include Are" Code)

Ms. Melissa Scarbrough

1_ ~. ~~ ?1)3-042:L

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE A.'ID ZIP CODE

DATE OF BIRTH

_ 2304 East NAME OF THE

EM] 3P8LtOhYEARv.eLnAuBeO, R~Rt-GANDIZ_A.T_I..ONT, Ea ~bYMFE],NQiTiMAG.. £~ ~ ~iP3PRENTICESillP05C1O0M6nMSITTEE,

STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (llmore than one, list below)

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS

TELEPHONE (Include area code)

RIO BRAVO CANTINA

100+

(813) 796-5158

STREET ADDRESS

CITY. STATE AND ZlP CODE

COUNTY

26200 U.S. HIGHWAY 19 NORTH CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34621

PINELLAS

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS

TELEPHONE (Include area code)

APPLEBEE'S

(913) 967-4000

STREET ADDRESS

CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE

COUNTY

4551 West 107th Street, Suite 100, Overland Park, KS 66207

Johnson

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box{es))

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

RACE _ _ COLOR _

SEX --X.. REUGION_ NATIONAL ORIGIN -

RETAUATION --L.. AGE- DISABILITY_ OTHER(Spec!fY)...:L.-
Sex harassment
TIlE PARTICULARS ARE (1faddztionalspace is needed. attach extra sheet(s))
I: PERSONAL HARM:

EARLIEST
081 196
CONTINUING ACTION

LATEST
04/07/98

I was employed by Rio Bravo Cantina from August, 1996 until approximately April 8, 1998. During this time, I was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by the assistant manager, Rob Evans. Although management was made aware ofMr. Evans unwelcome behavior, nothing was done. The continuing harassment created a hostile work environment
I was terminated from my position on April 8, 1998.

u:;)
to CD <....- - ~ ---,.
c:: - - ...
I
<..n

II: RESPONDENT'S REASON FOR ADVERSE ACTION:

My employer said I was unreliable.

III: STATEMENT OF DISCRIMINATION:

I believe I was discriminated against because of my sex, female, and then retaliated

c.::;

against for opposing sexual harassment, in violation ofTitle VII of he Civil Rights

Act of 1964 as amended, and Florida Statutes Chapter 760.

-..A.- I wmlt this dwp filed \fth boIb the EEOC IIld the State or local apnc:y. iflll)'. twill adYiIetheqrnciel ift ds-aamy addrasor
teltphute nudJer aod ooopcnte fully fth them ill the procIIIIiDa oCmy charge ill accordIncewitb their procedurcL

NOTARY -(Whm necessary for State and ~ R~)

EEOC FORM' (RtN. (6192)

~--

Case 8:99-cv-013C71H-AEARK-MAP,= DIDSoCcRumIMeInNt A24T7ION Filed 03/18/2002AGENCPYage 32CHoAfR5GE6 NUUSER

KJ Thls 10rll is aftected by the P,,-_ ,cy Act 01 1974; S.. Privacy Act State., --.-/ be10re fV1 EFEEP0AC

com letin this 10r..

~

Florida Commission on Human Relations
State or local Agency, ifany

and EEOC

NAUE (Jndlc,",' IIr•• III •• Hrl.)
Ms.Sheri calvo

HO liE Tf,.l EPHO NE6Jllc/llde ArelJ Code)
(813) 738-5 12

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

1551 Nantucket Court

Palm Harbor, Fl 34683

2

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

STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (Jr .or~ than on~ lilt b~lo",)

NAIIE

OF EIIPLOYEES, IIEIIBERS TELEPHONE (Includ~ Ana Cod~)

Rio Bravo Cantina
STREET ADDRESS
2 200 u.s. Hi
NAIiE
Applebee's

19 N.

TELEPHONE NUIIBER (include Area Code)
(913) 967-4000

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

4551 West 107th Street, Suite 100, OVerland Park, KS 66207

COUNTY
Johnson

o DRACE

0 COLOR

kJ SEX 0 RELIGION 0 NATIONAL ORIGIN

Ii) RETALIATION 0 AGE

DISABILITY ~ OTHER (S~cJrJ')

Sex Harassment

DATE DISCRIUINATION TOOK PLACE

EARLIEST

LATEST

o05 / /97 02/ /98 CONTINUING ACTION

THE PARTICULARftRE

From approximately April/May, 1997 until as recently as

02/98, I was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by

the assistant manager, Rob Evans.

On numerous

occasions, I reported the harassment to upper management,

but nothing was ever done. The continuing sexual

harassment created a hostile work environmen~~

-.)

II: RESPONDENT'S REASON FOR ADVERSE ACTION:

-J~

= -=>
.&J

c=

~:.

~ ;=--

-:-::~

No reason was given for the sexual harass_ment ~-and subsequent retaliation.

III: STATEMENT OF DISCRIMINATION:
I believe I was discriminated against because of my sex, female, and then retaliated against for opposing sexual harassment, in violati9n"of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Florida Statutes Chapter
760.

o I want this charge 111ed wlth both the EEOC and the State or NOT~Y " (When necessary 10r State and local Requ1r...nts)
local Agency, 11 any. I w11l adv1se the agenc1es 11 I change .y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ address or telephone nuaber and coop.rat. tully w1th the. 1n the I swear or a111ra that I have read the above tharge and that
it ls true to the best 01 .y knowledge, 1n1oraatlon and belle1. ,
SIGNATURE

Date
~EOC FOIiM 5 (Rev. 06/92)

(31p1.tu~)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MA_P-~ ..RDGocEuOmFenDt I2S4C7RIMFINileAdT0I3O/N18/2002

This form is aff~ed by the Privacy Aa of 197~ee Privacy Aa StatemaJt before COI!J)IEting this form.

AGENCY
'" FEPA
'" EEOC

Page 33 of 56
CHARGE NUMBER
I 1'-0 /)<C ( ~ Ct,

State or local agency. ifany:
Name (IndIcate Mr.. Mrs.. Ms)
Ms. Veronica Ferek
STREET ADDRESS

Florida Commission On Human Relations and EEOC

HOME TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)

(813) 733-5973

CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE

DATE OF BIRTH

1447 Santa Monica Drive

Dunedin. Florida 34698

II 120/77

NAME OF THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,

STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (Ifmore than one. ust below)

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. MEMBERS

TELEPHONE (Include area code)

RIO BRAVO CANTINA
STREET ADDRESS

100+ cm-. STATE A."ID ZIP CODE

(813) 796-5158

COUNlY

26200 U.S. IDGHWAY 19 NORTH CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34621

PINELLAS

NAME
APPLEBEE'S

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. l\fEMBERS

TELEPHONE (Include area code)
(913) 967-4000

STREET ADDRESS

CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE

4551 West 107th Street, Suite 100, Overland Park, KS 66207

COUNTY
Johnson

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check oppropnate bor(es))

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

RACE _ _ COLOR _

SEX ~ REUGION__ NATIONALORlGIN-

RETAUATION......x- AGE- DISABILITY__ OTHER(Specify)-X.-

Sex harassment
THE PARTICULARS ARE (lfadditiDnalspoce IS needed. attach extra sheet(s))
I: ·PERSONAL HARM:

EARLIEST
02/ /96
CONTINUING ACTION

LATEST
07/ /97

~
I. was employed by Rio Bravo Cantina from approximately February, 1996 until approximately July, 1997. During this time, I was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by the
assistant manager, Rob Evans. Although I reported the harassment to Shawn Corway and Ben Irwin and several shift managers, nothing was done. The continuing harassment created a hostile work environment.

I was forced to resign from my position in July, 1997.

II: RESPONDENT'S REASON FOR ADVERSE ACTION:

No reason was given for the sexual harassment and subsequent retaliation..

r·,)

-,

III: STATEMENT OF DISCRIMINATION:

I believe I was discriminated against because of my sex, female, and then retaliated

. (
c

against for opposing sexual harassment, in violation of Title VII of he Civil Rights

Act of 1964 as amended, and Florida Statutes Chapter 760.

~ I wml this cbarp filed with both dae EEOC IIld the Slate or
\oca1 agmc:y. ifIlly. I will advise the apac::ieI ifl c:bmp my adchss or tdqJbcne IlUIIIba' mel ooopcnte JUlIy ~ them in the proceain, ofmy charp in acaxdmce ~ their procecbes.

NOTARY - (When neceauy for Slate and Local Requinmmts)

FORM S (Rev. 06192)

DATE

- - Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-M'hArPtRGDEoOcuFmDeInStC2R4I7MINFAinleOd N03/18/2002 \GENCY

'See This form is affeaed by the Privacy Aa of 1974; Privacy Aa SUIanent before

-",/ FEPA

alIlJ'!tt!g this form.

,/ EEOC

Page 34 of 56
CHARGE NUMBER
15)95 ;352

Sta~ or local agency. ifany:
NUDe (Indicate Mr.. Mr!.. MI.)
Ms. Sheri Calvo
STREET ADDRESS

Florida Commission On Human Relations and EEOC
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

HOME TElEPHONE (lnchule Area Code)
(813) 946-8287
DATE OF BIRTH

2992 Brooksfield Lane

Clearwater, Florida 33761

08lO6n2

NAME OF THE EMPLOYER. LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, APPRENTICESlllP COMMITTEE,

STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (lfmon than one.lut below)

NAME

~R OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS

TElEPHONE (lncLNde area code)

RIO BRAVO CANTINA

100+

(813) 796-5158

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STAn: AND ZIP CODE

COUNTY

26200 U.S. HIGHWAY 19 NORTH CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34621

PINELLAS

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. MEMBERS

TElEPHONE (Include area code)

APPLEBEE'S

(913) 967-4000

STREET ADDRESS

CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE

COUNTY

4551 West 107th Street, Suite 100, Overland Park, KS 66207

Johnson

CAUSE OF DISCRlMINATlON BASED ON (Check appropnare bo:c(e!))

DA'ffiDISCRlMINATlON TOOK PlACE

RACE _ _ COLOR _

SEX - L REUGIOS_ NATIONALORIGlN -

RETAUATION --X... AGE

DlSABIUTY_

OTHER (Specify)....:4-.

Constructive Discharge
THE PARTICULARS ARE (Ifadditional space i! needed, attDcI! extra !heet(!))
I: PERSONAL HARM:

EARUEST
021 196

LATEST
061 198

CONTINUING ACTION ~

I was employed by Rio Bravo Cantina from May, 1994 until June, 1998. On April 20, 1998, I filed a charge ofdiscrimination with the EEOC for sexual harassment. As a result of my reporting the sexual harassment, I was subjected to retaliation and a hostile work environment.

Due to the unbearable work conditions, I was forced to resign from my position in June, 1998.

IT: RESPONDENT'S REASON FOR ADVERSE ACTION: No reason was given for the disparate treatment and retaliation..

--

..
. ,

ill: STATEMENT OF DISCRIMINATION:

-- 'i

I believe I was discriminated against for reporting sexual harassment, and subsequently t:etaliated against for opposing the sexual harassment and constructively discharged in violation of Title VII aChe Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, and Florida Statutes Chapter 760.

NOTARY -(Wbcu IleCCIIIIIl'Y for Stale and Loc:al ~)

FORM' (&V. (6192)

CHARGING PARTY (Signamre)

0A'fI~\• I-,,¢- SHIRLE ANN COLVIN

~~~I:'

OF

'i\.~!~It

coaMSSION # CC 514185 EXPIRES NOV 16, 2000
IONDB) THIlU
ATLANTIC IOII?ING co., INC.

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 35 of 56
EXHIBITE

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 36 of 56

hq- THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA D(V(SION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISS(ON.

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK AND

)

MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL. INC. and

)

lNNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, )

INC. and APPLEBEE'S INTERNA110NAL,

)

INC. d/b/a RIO BRAVO CANTINA

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-137 I-CIV-T-I 7A

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF EEOC'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT Defendants. by and through undersigned counsel, hereby respond to Plaintiff. EEOC's First Se: of lnterrogato~!s to Defendants as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants object to any interrogatory to the extent that it seeks disclosure of the thoughts, mental U:.;Jressions, legal theories or investigation ofcounsel for defendants which relates to cr was prepared :or this litigation. 2. Defendants object to any interrogatory to the extent that it seeks disclosure of
1

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 37 of 56
INTERROGATORIES --
1-1. Please provide the name, address, telephone number. social seccrity number, place of
employment and job title of any person who has, claims to have or whom you believe may have
knowledge or infonnation pertaining to any fact alleged in the pleadings filed ::t this action (including
denials and affirmative defenses raised in the Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint;. or any fact•Wlderlying
the subject matter of this action.
Melissa Scarborougb
This individual can be contacted through plaintiffs' counsel. Former Crewmember. Currently is an intervenor in this action.
Veronica Ferek
This individual can be contacted through plaintiffs' counsel. Former Crewmember. Currently is an intervenor in this action.
Sheri Calvo
This individual can be contacted through plaintiffs' counsel. Former Crewmember. Currently is an intervenor in this action.
Phil Crenshaw Owner Phishheads P.O. Box 959 Ft. White, FL 32038 (904) 755-0490
Mr. Crenshaw was a general manager of the Clearwater Rio Bnvo Cantina and has knowledge of the intervenon' employment at the restaurant during some of the time period of the events alleged in the Complaints.
Benn Irwin
Mr. Irwin is currently employed with one of the defendants in a managerial capacity and can be contacted through counsel.
3

.'
Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 38 of 56

'---"
Mr. Irwin was a general manager of tbe Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina and bas knowledge of tbe intervenon' e.ployment at the restaurant during some of tbe time period of tbe events alleged in tile Complaints.

Chris Hemmings

4827 Long Water Way

Tampa, FL 33615

(813) 81~503 Employer unknown

•

Mr. Hemmings was an Area Director for tbe Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina and bas general kaowledge of tbe operatiens and tbe employees oftbe restaurant during some of tbe time-period of the events alleced in tbe Complaints.

Brian Lyman

Mr. Lymaa is currently employed witb one of die defendants in a managerial capacity and can be contacted through CRnseL

Mr. Lyman was an Area Director for tbe Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina and bas general knowledge of tbe operations and of tbe employees of tbe restaurant during some of tbe time period of the events alleged in the Complaints.

Cote Turner

Mr. Turner is currently employed with one of tbe defendants in a managerial capacity and can be contacted through counsel.

Mr. Turner was an Area Director (or tbe Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina and bas general knowledge of the operations and alae employees of the resblurant during some oftbe time period o( the events alleged in the Complaints.

Sbawn Corway 11559 Shady Creek Drive Jacksonville, FL 32223 Telephone number unknown

Mr. Corway was an Assistant Msnager at tbe Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina and bas knowledge of tbe operations of the operations and tbe employees of tbe restaurant during some of tbe time period of the events alleged in the Complaints.

4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 39 of 56

Robert E\'ans 336 Countryside Key Oldsmar, FL 34677 (727) 786-9785 Place of employment unknowa

Mr. Evans is the accused harasser in this action and was a former Assistant Manager at the Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina.

James McDonald

•

5404 Locklear Drive

Riverview, FL 33569

Telephone number and place efemployment unknown

Mr. McDonald was an Assistaat Manager at the Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina and has

knowledge of the operations of the operations and the employees of the restaurant

.

during much of the time period of the events alleged in the Complaints.

Marion Wolfe

Mr. Wolfe is currently employed with one of the defendants in a managerial capacity and can be contacted through counsel.

Mr. Wolfe has been the Kitchen Manager, an Assistant Manager and the Front of House Manager at the Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina and has knowledge of the operations and employees of the restaurant.

Renee Brown 65 Lifestyle Blvd. No. 1116 Palm Harbor, FL 34684 Telephone number unknown

Ms. Brown is currently a crewmember at the Clearwater Rio Bravo and worked with Rob Evans and tbe tbree intervenors.

Sbarlee Carter Address, telephone number and place of employment unknown.

Ms. Carter was a crewmembu at tbe Clearwater Rio Bravo and worked with Rob Evans and the three intervenors.

5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 40 of 56

Summer Blair Address unknown, currently a student. (72 7) 723-0264

Ms. Blair was a crewmember at tbe Clearwater Rio Bravo and worked with Rob Evans and the three intervenors.

I'i icole Simpson

1223 Union Street Clearwater, FL 33755

•

Telephone number unknown

Ms. Simpson is a crewmember at the Clearwater Rio Bravo and worked with Rob Evans
and thethree intervenors.

Brian Harting Address, telephone number aDd place of employment unknown.

Mr. Hartin, was a crewmember .. the Clearwater Rio Bravo and worked with Rob Evans and tbe three iDtervenon.

Mike Losey

Mr. Losey is currently employed with one of the defendants in a managerial capacity and can be contacted through couasel.

Mr. Losey was a crewmember at the Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina during some ofthe time period of events alleged in the Complaint and may have knowledge of Sheri Calvo and Veronica Ferek's employment at the restaunot.

John 'foore

Mr. Moore is currently employed with one of the defendants in a managerial capacity and can be contacted through counsel.

Mr. Moore is a Human Resources Manager and be conducted the original investigation into the sexual hanssment anegations.

Laura Rush Address, telephone number and pb.ce of employment unknown.

Ms. Rush was a crewmember at the Clearwater Rio Bravo and worked with Rob Evans and the three intervenors.

6

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 41 of 56

Brandon Heinsohn
Mr. Heinsohn is currently emplO)"ed with one of the defendants in a managerial capacity and can be contacted through cousel.
Mr. Heinsohn was a general muager at the Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina and has knowledge concerning the employment of Sheri Calvo.

Gan° Wein

Address, telepbone number and pbce of employment unknown.

•

Mr. Wein was a general manager at tbe Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina and may have knowledge about the emplo,..ent of Sberi Calvo.

Peter Hanson 9218 Anderson Road Logan's Roadhouse (813) 884-5129
Mr. Hanson wu • manager at the Carrollwood, Florida, Rio Bravo Cantina where
Melissa Scarborough transferred after working at the Clearwater restaurant.

Carrie Dehetric Address, telephone number and pbce of employment unknown.

Ms. Dehetric was a crewmember at the Clearwater Rio Bravo and worked witb Rob Evans and tbe three intervenors ud may have knowledge ofthe alleged harassment by Evans.

Debbie Howells Address, telepbone number and place of employment unknown.
Ms. Howells was a crewmember It the Clearwater Rio Bravo and worked with Rob Evans and the three intervenors ud may have knowledge of the alleged harassment by Evans.

Nicole Marchesiello Address, telephone number and place of employment unknown.

Ms. Marchesiello was a crewmembu at the Clearwater Rio Bravo and worked with Rob Evans and tbe three intervenors and may have knowledge of the alleged harassment by Evans.

7

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 42 of 56
Lcsh~ L uccinotta Address, telephone number and place of employment unknown.
Ms. Cuc:cinotta wa5 a c:rewmember at the Clearwater Rio Bravo and worked with Rob [vans and the tbree intervenon aDd may have knowledge ofthe alleged barusment by Evans.
Nanc,' Goodworth Address, telephone Dumber aDd place of employment unknown.
•
M.s. Goodworth was a crewmember at the Clearwater Rio Bravo and worked with Rob Evans and the three intervenors and may have knowledge ofthe alleged barassment by E.ans.
Danielle Barba Address, telephone number and place of employment unknown.
Ms. Barba wu a a-ewmember at tbe Clearwater Rio Bravo and worked with Rob Evans ud the three intcrvenon and may have knowledge ofthe alleged harassment by Evans.
Nicole Gracey Address, telephone number and place of employment unknown.
~1.5. Gracey was a crewmember at the Clearwater Rio Bravo and worked with Rob [ .. ans and the three interveners and may have knowledge of the alleged harassment by [\ans.
Rebecca Rhoden 1i31 Nantucket Ct. Building #22 Palm Harbor, FL 34683 C~7) 738-8079 Employment unknown
M.s. Rhoden is a friend of Sheri Calvo. She may have information regarding alleged comments made by Rob Evans.
Dave Wdch 2665 Favor Road Apt. A8 M:arietta, GA 30066 Telephone number and place of employment unknown
8

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 43 of 56 Mr. Welch wa~n assistant manager at the Clearwa-rer Rio Bravo Caotina and may have knowledge of the intervenors' employment. Robert T. Steinkamp Mr. Steinkamp is the Vice President and General Counsel of Applebee's Internationa., (nc. and is familiar with the facts of this case. Thomas J. McGrath • Mr. McGrath is the Associate General Counsel of Applebee's International, Inc. and is familiar with the facts of this case. Peter W."Zinober Erich Y. Schultz Mr. Zinober and Mr. Schultz are the defense attorneys of this case and are familiar with the racts of the case.
9

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 44 of 56 \-2. Please s~e the specific nature and substance of1he knowledge that you believe the persons(s) identified in your response to Interrogatory I-I may have. Defendants ba"e responded to tbis Interrogatory in their response to Interrogatory No. t-1. •
10

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 45 of 56 1-3. Please state all d:r(cs of employment. locations of employrilent and positions held by Roben Evans with the Defendant Corporations.
Store 316 = 26200 U.s. Highway 19 North
Clurwater, FL 34621
Store 307 = 1102 N. Dale Mabry Higbway
Tampa. FL 33607 •
Approximately July 7. 1994, to October 6, 1996. Clearwater, FL - Store 316. Enos was an hourly employee. He was primarily a server and bartender during tbis entire time'period. I. approximately 1996, he also had duties as a key employee and front of house trainer. Approximately October 7" 1996, to Janury 22,1997 T_pa, FL - Store 307 Enas was an assistaat maIlager. Approximately January 13,1997, to March 7,1998. Clearwater, FL - Store 316 Enns was an assistant manager. Marcb 7, 1998, to Manb 13, 1998 Clearwater, FL - Store 316 Enns was suspended on March 7, 1998, and then terminated on March 13, 1998.
11

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 46 of 56 1-4. Please provide 'bt'e nar.~. last known address and telepnone number, and social security nwnber of all individuals empluyed by you at Rio Bravo Cantina, 26200 U.S. Highway 19 North, Clearwater, Florida, during Robert Evans' employment at that location. State whether or not each individual is currently employed by you.
Defendants object to this interrogatory because it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant. Despite these objections, and without waiving tbem, after a reasonably diligent inquiry, defeodants will produce documents responsive to this request to tbe extent that they exist.
12

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 47 of 56
1-5. Please list the ncllne.last known address and telephone number and social security n'..:nber of
each individual who has ever complained of sexual harassment by Robert Evans while he was
employed by you. For each indi\iduallisted state whether that individual's complaint(s) was (were)
made verbally or in writing, the nature of the complaint(s) and the individual(s) to whom the
compJaint(s) was (were) made.
• Sheri Calvo
Veronica Ferek
Melissa Scarborough
These individuals CD be contacted through plaintiffs' counsel. DefendaCs are aware ofverbal c:empbints by CalYo to Philip Crenshaw and Cote TUI"Da'and a written cOlDplaiat to Cote Tumer. Defendants became aware of alleged harassment agawt Veronica Ferek and Melissa Scarborough upon their fling of EEOC charges.
Sharlee Carter Address and telephone number unknown.
Complained verbally of physical harassment by Rob E\·ans. She complained to John Moore durill& his investigation of Sheri Calvo's allegations of sex harassment.
Laura Rush Address and telephone number unknown.
Complained verbally of physical harassment by Rob E,,'ans. Her complaints were made to John Moore duringlais investigation ofSheri Calvo's aUegaIions of sex harasslDeat.
Summer Blair Address unknoWil.
(727) 723-0264
Complained verbally of verbal harassment by Rob Evans. Her complaints were made to Phil Crenshaw.
13

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 48 of 56

Renee Brown 65 Lifestyle Blvd. No. 1116 Palm Harbor, FL 34684 Telephone number unknown.

Complained verbally of physical harassment by Rob Evans. Her complaints

were made to John Moore during his investigation ofSheri Calvo's allegatioos of

sex harassment.

•

Defendants object to providing the Social Security numbers of any individuals based on relevaoce and the privacy of tbe individuals.

14

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 49 of 56
. -6. Please Identify each person whom you may use as an expert WItness at trial.
No experts have been retained at this time.
•
15

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 50 of 56 1-7. Please state in d~il the subsunce of the opinions to befJl'ovided by each person whom you may use as an expert witness at trial. No experts have been retaiofCi at this time. •
16
./

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 51 of 56
1-8. Please identify 8IrY and all documents pertaining to anyUct alleged in any pleading filed in
this action (including the denials and affirmative defenses raised in the Answer to Plaintitrs Complaint).
Defendants object to this interrogatory because it is vague, ambiguous, over broad, over burdensom~ and possibly subject to the attorney dient privilege andlorwork produd doctrine. Defendants will provide all relevant, nOD-privileged documents in response to any appropriate document request.
17

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 52 of 56 1-9. Please describe'ln detail each fact upon which Defenaant relies to assert its denial of Paragraphs 4 and 6 of Plaintiff EEOC's Complaint in this action.
Applebee's International, Inc- is a Delaware Corporation that owned Rio Bravo International, Inc. as a whoUy owned subsidiary during the time period at issue. Applebee's International, Inc., bas not been doing business in the Sute of Florida and the City of Clearwater, tbus it bas not had at letst IS employees for the purposes of jurisdiction in this lawsuit.
• Rio Bravo IDtenaationa', Inc. is a Kansas corporation tbat owned Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc- u a wholly owned subsidiary during the time period at issue. Rio Bravo lDteraationaly Inc- lias not continuously been doing busiaas in the State of Florida and the City of Clearwatery thus it has not had at least IS employees for the purpose of jurisdiction in this lawsuit.
• Innovative Resblurant Concepts, Inc., d/b/a Rio Bravo Cantina of Georgia, Inc., is tbe only company tat bas been doing business continuously in Florida u contemplated by Title VII.
18

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 53 of 56
"in \-\ O. Please describe detail each fact upon which Defendanll=C"iies to assert its denial with respect
to Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff EEOC's Complaint in this action. Many ofthe plaintiffs' allegations appear to have arisen more tban three buadred days before the administrative cbarges were filed. Furtbermore, the allegations of tbe Complaints also appear to go beyond tbe scope of tbe administrative charges.
"
19

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 54 of 56 1-1 i. Please state the'rites of compensalJon, including any preml'.lm rates for working overtime. holidays, etc.• for individuaJs employed by Defendants at Rio Bravo Cantina. 26200 U.S. Highway 19 North. Clearwater. Florida as food servers and hostlhostesses from January 1996 to the present.

Servers at the Clearwater, Florida, Rio Bravo Restaunat typically received a wage of

S2.125 an hour, plus tips.

•

Hostesses at the Clearwater Florida Rio Bravo Restaurant received a starting wage of approximately 54.25. This wage was increased dependilll upon the amount ofservice a particular -hostess luad witb tbe company.

There was no holiday pay. •
Overtime was paid as time and a balf for hours worked over forty (40) lIoun.

20

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 55 of 56
1-12. Identify any an~1 employment benefits which have been' included in the compensation for

individuals employed by Defendants at Rio Bravo Cantina. 26200 U.S. Highway 19 North,

Clearwater, Florida. as food servers and hostlhostesses from January 1996 to the present, including,

but not limited to, life insurance. health insurance coverage and pension benefits. For each

employment benefit, stale Defendant's contribution. if any. •

VacatioD Leave:

F..ployees are eligible for vacation leave if tbey work an avenge of 30 boanaweek.

Health IDSUraDffl- F..ployees are eligible for health ins....nce (including dental) if tbey werk an average of27 boun a week. AD employee contributes a nominal a-.ount if they elect to receive the coverace.

401K:

Becinning in approximately Aprill999, .pon the purchase of Rio Bravo (ldemational, InCo, by Chevy, Inc., employees could become eligible to participate in the 401K program.

Credit Union:

Membenhip in a credit union for all elDployees.

Meals:

With certain menu exceptions, crewmelDbers are given a 50% meal credit for on-duty meals.

21

- - - - -~-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 247 Filed 03/18/2002 Page 56 of 56

~

/

'--

CERTIFICATE OF SERYI~£

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Response to
PlainliffEEOC's First Set of Interrogatories 10 Defendant was served by U.S. Mail on this 51 day of

Janu8l)-, 2000. to:

Wolfgang M. Florin. Esq.

•

Cluistopher D. Gray, Esq.

Angela E. Ouam, Esq.

R..ORIN, ROEBIO, WALKER.

HUDDLESTUN &. ROGERS, PA

777 Alderman Road

Palm Harbor, A. 34683

MichaelJ. Fand. Esq.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission One Biscayne Tower Two S. Biscayne Blvd. Suite 2700 Miami. FL 33131

Attorney

22

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 249 Filed 03/21/2002 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

SHERI CALVO, et al., Intervenor/Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP

vs.

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, et al.,

Defendants.

---------------------------/

ORDER This cause is before the Court on the following:

Dkt.
Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt.

100 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
as to Claims of Calvo, Scarborough and
101 Notice of Filing Deposition Excerpts
102 Deposition -Crenshaw 103 Deposition - Irwin 104 Deposition - Calvo
105 Deposition - Calvo 106 Deposition - Scarborough
107 Deposition - Scarborough
108 Deposition - Ferek 109 Deposition - Ferek
110 Affidavit
189 Response
190 Response

Ferek

Defendants move for partial summary judgment as to the retaliation claims of Plaintiff/Intervenors Calvo, Ferek and Scarborough. Defendants also move for dismissal of Intervenors'

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 249 Filed 03/21/2002 Page 2 of 7
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP claims to the extent that those claims are based on time-barred events, that is, events which occurred beyond the three hundred day limitation under Title VII, and the three hundred sixty five day limitation under the Florida Civil Rights Act.
I. EEOC's Response
Plaintiff requests the denial of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiff argues that the hostile environment of the workplace constitutes a continuing violation for purposes of Title VII, and therefore the limitation of Intervenors' claims should be denied. As to the retaliation claims, Plaintiff argues that the adverse actions are pretextual, and there is evidence in the record providing a sufficient basis for a reasonable juror to find the actions pretextual. Plaintiff further argues that the Intervenors were intentionally misled by Defendants that their complaints would be taken care of without further action.
II. Intervenors' Response
Intervenors Calvo, Ferek and Scarborough request the denial of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment based on the application of the continuing violation theory. As to retaliation and constructive discharge, Intervenors argue that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be denied because, under the applicable tests, Intervenors suffered adverse employment actions after filing their charges.
III. Standard of Review
This circuit clearly holds that summary judgment should only
2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 249 Filed 03/21/2002 Page 3 of 7
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP
be entered when the moving party has sustained its burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact when all the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sweat v. The Miller Brewing Co., 708 F.2d 655 (11th Cir. 1983. All doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Hayden v. First National Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 595 F.2d 994, 9967 (5th Cir. 1979), quoting Gross v. Southern Railroad Co., 414 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1969). Factual disputes preclude summary judgment.
The Supreme Court held, in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986),
In our view the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 273.
The Court also said, "Rule 56(e} therefore requires that the nonmoving party go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex Corp., at p. 274. IV. Discussion A. Continuing Violation
Defendants argue that Intervenors did not file charges after becoming aware of the hostile environment of the workplace, and as a result, the Court should find that events occurring before
3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 249 Filed 03/21/2002 Page 4 of 7
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP the applicable limitation periods should not be considered. Defendants rely on Roberts v. Gadsden Memorial Hospital, 835 F.2d 793 (11th Cir. 1988) and Matthews v. City of Gulfport, 72 F.Supp. 1328 (M.D. Fal. 1999).
Plaintiff argues that courts have consistently found that a complaining party need only show that a violation occurred within 300 days of filing the charge in order for like claims to be timely, and the continuing violation theory is applicable to this hostile environment case. Plaintiff argues that, based on subject matter, frequency and permanence, the factual situation in this case meets the requirements to find a continuing violation. Plaintiff argues that this case is similar to the factual situation in Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc., 89 F.Supp.2d (M.D. Fla. 2000). Plaintiff argues that the Intervenors attempted to exhaust the means available to resolve the complaints internally, including verbal complaints to a succession of assistant managers, verbal complaints to a succession of general managers, verbal and written complaints to area directors, and calling the 1-800 hotline for employee complaints.
Plaintiff further argues that the continuing violation doctrine is an equitable doctrine, and Defendants led Intervenors to believe that the complaints would be addressed. After four years, when there was no resolution, Intervenors filed formal charges. Plaintiff argues that Defendants intentionally deceived Intervenors and the Court should not reward the deception.
After consideration, the Court denies the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The parties have offered different versions of
4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 249 Filed 03/21/2002 Page 5 of 7
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP what happened, and why it happened that way. The Court may not weigh evidence, and is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. The litany of unwelcome touching, sexual remarks, and other events recounted at length in the depositions appropriately puts this case in the category of continuing violation.
B. Retaliation
In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a party must demonstrate that 1) she engaged in a statutorily protected activity; 2) that she suffered adverse employment action; and 3) that the adverse employment action was causally related to the protected activity. Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., 139 F.3d 1385 (11 th Cir. 1998).
As to the issue of the presence of adverse employment action, there is no bright line rule to apply; the Court is required to view each fact situation on a case by case basis. The employee's subjective view of the significance and adversity of the employer's conduct is not controlling; the employment action must be materially adverse as viewed by a reasonable person in the circumstances. There are material facts in dispute which prevent the Court from making any determination as a matter of law on the presence of adverse employment action.
Defendants have offered reasonable explanations as to causation, but Plaintiff and Intervenors' explanations may be equally reasonable, viewing the whole background of this case. The Court found the factual scenario that unfolded over an extended period of time to be so extreme as to be incredible.
5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 249 Filed 03/21/2002 Page 6 of 7
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Doubt has been cast equally on the testimony of all of the witnesses. When which version of the facts is accepted turns on credibility of witnesses, the issue must be turned over to the jury to decide what happened and why it happened. The Court denies the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to this issue.
C. Constructive Discharge
To establish constructive discharge, an employee must show that the employer's action was deliberate and that the working conditions were intolerable. Disputed versions of the facts and the reasons for what occurred have been offered, and the Court concludes that which version is accepted will depend on credibility. After consideration, the Court denies the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to this issue. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 100) is denied.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida on this
~~ of March, 2002.
Copies to: All parties
6

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP F DIocLumEent 2C49OPFiYled 03/21/2002 Page 7 of 7
Date Printed: 03/22/2002
Notice sent to:
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Scott T. Silverman, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Christopher D. Gray, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 258 Filed 04/09/2002 Page 1 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK and )

MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

)

)

Intervenor Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHEVY'S, INC.,

)

)

Defendant,

)

)

and

)

)

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC. and )

INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS )

INC. and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, )

INC. d/b/a RIO BRAVO CANTINA,

)

)

Defendantsffhird -Party Plaintiffs,

)

)

ROBERT EVANS,

)

)

Third-Party Defendant.

)

)

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

Case No. 99-1371-CIV-T-17A

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST ROBERT EVANS

Defendantsffhird-Party Plaintiffs Rio Bravo International, Inc., Innovative Restaurant

Concepts, Inc., and Applebee's International, Inc. ("Third-Party Plaintiffs"), by and through their

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 258 Filed 04/09/2002 Page 2 of 6
undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 14(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., hereby file this Third-Party Complaint Against Robert Evans ("Evans").
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Evans is a citizen of the State of Florida, residing within the Middle District of Florida and thus is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. 2. Applebee's International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. 3. Rio Bravo International, Inc. is a Kansas corporation. 4. Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. is a Georgia Corporation. 5. This is an action for monetary damages in excess of $75,000. The Court thus has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.c. § 1332. 6. The Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 in that the claims raised herein are so related to the claims raised in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") and the Intervenor Plaintiffs' Complaints that they form part of the same case or controversy. 7. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have occurred. 9. On or about July 1994, Evans began his employment at the Rio Bravo Cantina in Clearwater, Florida as a bartender. 10. On or about October 1996, Evans entered into the Manager in Training program at the South Tampa Rio Bravo Cantina.
2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 258 Filed 04/09/2002 Page 3 of 6
11. On or about January 1997, Evans completed the Manager in Training program and was transferred back to the Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina as an assistant manager.
12. On or about March 13, 1998, Evans was terminated from his employment at the Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina.
13. Mr. Evans was terminated after allegations of acting improperly towards female crewmembers were raised against him, which allegations were investigated Evans' employer, Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc.
14. On or about April 19, 1998, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, and Melissa Scarborough ("Intervenors") filed charges of sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against the Third-Party Plaintiffs.
15. Subsequently, on or about July 6, 1999 the EEOC filed this action against the Third-Party Plaintiffs, claiming, inter alia, that Evans sexually harassed the Intervenors as well as numerous unidentified "similarly situated" female crewmembers. [See Docket, Complaint, Jury Trial Demand, Injunctive Relief Sought, ~11.g.]
16. The EEOC claims that the Third-Party Plaintiffs have violated Title VII and is seeking extensive monetary damages as well as injunctive relief against the Defendants.
17. On or about July 15, 1999, the Intervenors served their Motion to Intervene. The motion was granted on November 5, 1999.
18. The Intervenors claim that the Third-Party Plaintiffs have violated Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act and are seeking extensive monetary damages. Their complaint is also based on alleged verbal and physical sexual harassment by Evans.
19. The Third-Party Plaintiffs in this action are potentially subject to significant monetary damages as a result of Evans' alleged behavior.
3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 258 Filed 04/09/2002 Page 4 of 6
20. The Rio Bravo Cantina had an established policy against sexual and other forms of harassment.
21. Evans was aware of the policies. COUNT I - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
22. The Third-Party Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 8-21 above. 23. As a managerial employee of the Rio Bravo Cantina, Evans owed a fiduciary duty to act in the Third Party Plaintiffs' best interests. 24. In the event some or all of the allegations raised by the EEOC and/or Intervenors against Evans are proven, such actions would constitute a breach of Evans' duty to the ThirdParty Plaintiffs, because Evans would be found to have been promoting his own self-interest, at the expense of the Third Party Plaintiffs, in contravention to stated policies against harassment, while still employed at the restaurant. 25. As a result of any such breach of duty by Evans, the Third-Party Plaintiffs may suffer significant damages. 26. In the event the allegations against Evans are proven, Evans' breach of his duty to the Third-Party Plaintiffs would be the direct cause of any harm suffered by the Third-Party Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE the Third-Party Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment for damages against Evans, including such amounts as may be awarded to EEOC and the Intervenors against the Third-Party Plaintiffs, should the Third-Party Plaintiffs be found liable to the EEOC and/or Intervenors.
4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 258 Filed 04/09/2002 Page 5 of 6
COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 27. The Third-Party Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 8-21 above. 28. As a member of management at the Clearwater Rio Bravo, Evans had an implied employment contract with the Third-Party Plaintiffs. 29. This implied employment contract required Evans to perform his duties in a manner consistent with the Third-Party Plaintiffs' policy, including the policy prohibiting sexual harassment. 30. In the event that some or all of the allegations raised by the EEOC and/or Intervenors against Evans are proven, such actions would constitute a breach of Evans' implied employment contract with the Third-Party Plaintiffs. 31. The Third-Party Plaintiffs may suffer damages to the extent that the EEOC and/or the Intervenors are awarded relief against the Third-Party Plaintiffs. 32. In the event the allegations against Evans are proven, Evans' breach of his implied employment contract would be the direct cause of any harm suffered by the Third-Party Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE the Third-Party Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court Order Evans to make whole the Third-Party Plaintiffs should they be found liable to the EEOC and/or the Intervenors.
5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 258 Filed 04/09/2002 Page 6 of 6

JURy TRIAL DEMAND The Third-Party Plaintiffs request a jury trial in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,
:&to~~
Florida Bar No. 121750
M--~
Scott T. Silverman Florida Bar NO.0021709 ZINOBER & McCREA, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 224-9004 Telephone (813) 223-4881 Facsimile Attorneys for Defendants!
Third-Party Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served by

1i:i. regular U.S. Mail this

day of April 2002 on Michael J. Farrell, Esq., Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, Miami District Office, Two South Biscayne Boulevard, One Biscayne

Tower, Suite 2700 Miami, Florida 33131, Christopher D. Gray, Esq., Florin, Roebig, Walker,

Huddlestun & Rogers, P.A., 777 Alderman Road, Palm Harbor, Florida 34683, Kevin Zwetsch,

Esq., Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A., 501 E. Kennedy Blvd.. Suite 1700, Tampa, Florida

33602 and Mark Rodriquez, Esq., 110 Magnolia St. South, Suite 230, Tampa, Florida 33606.

Attorney
6

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 260 Filed 04/16/2002 Page 1 of 7

F/LEO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK AND

)

MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC. and

)

INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, )

INC. and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL,

)

INC. d/b/a RIO BRAVO CANTINA, and

)

CHEVYS, INC.

)

)

Defendants.

)

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-13 71-CIV-T-17A
AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis ofsex and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater particularity in paragraph 14, the Commission alleges that Ms. Calvo, Ms. Ferek, Ms. Scarborough and similarly situated individuals were subjected to sexual harassment by Robert Evans, a management official of the Defendant corporations. The Commission further alleges that Defendants subsequently retaliated against Ms. Calvo, Ms. Ferek and Ms. Scarborough for

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 260 Filed 04/16/2002 Page 2 of 7
complaining ofthe unlawful sexual harassment by subjecting them to adverse terms and conditions of employment, discharge and/or constructive discharge.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the Untied States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Rio Bravo International, Inc. has continuously been doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Clearwater, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. has continuously been doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Clearwater, and has continuously had at least 15 employees 6. At all relevant times, Applebee's International, Inc. has continuously been doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Clearwater, and has continuously had at least 15
2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 260 Filed 04/16/2002 Page 3 of 7
employees. 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Chevys, Inc., (the "Successor Employer") has been
a California-based corporation doing business in the State ofFlorida and the City ofClearwater and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
8. At all relevant times, Defendant Chevys, Inc. has been a "successor employer" within the meaning of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of1964. EEOC v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers. Inc., 503 F.2d 1086 (6th Cir. 1974).
9. At all relevant times Rio Bravo International, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h).
10. At all relevant times Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h).
11. At all relevant times, Applebee's International, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSections 70 I(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
12. At all relevant times, Chevys, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 13. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek and Melissa Scarborough each filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle VII by Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been fulfilled.
3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 260 Filed 04/16/2002 Page 4 of 7
14. Since at least February of 1996, Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Clearwater, Florida location in violation of Section 703(a) and Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a) and §2000e-3(a).
a. Sheri Calvo was subjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should have known ofthe sexual harassment.
b. Defendants retaliated against Sheri Calvo for complaining of the unlawful sexual harassment by subjecting her to adverse terms and conditions of employment, including unfavorable work schedules and job assignments, and subsequently discharging her from her position.
c. Veronica Ferek was SUbjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment.
d. Defendants retaliated against Veronica Ferek for complaining ofthe unlawful sexual harassment by forcing her to resign her position.
e. Melissa Scarborough was subjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal
4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 260 Filed 04/16/2002 Page 5 of 7
conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment. £ Defendants retaliated against Melissa Scarborough for complaining of the unlawful sexual harassment by discharging her from her position. g. Other similarly situated female employees ofthe Defendants were subjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment. 15. The effect of the conduct complained of in paragraph 14 above has been to deprive Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because oftheir sex and/or in retaliation for their opposition to unlawful employment practices.. 16. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 14 above were intentional. 17. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 14 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals.
5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 260 Filed 04/16/2002 Page 6 of 7
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a pennanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in sexual harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and/or opposition to an unlawful employment practice. B. Order Defendants, to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendants to make whole Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be detennined at trial, and other affinnative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement and rightful place promotion or front pay. D. Order Defendants to make whole Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 14 above, including out of pocket losses in amounts to be detennined at trial. E. Order Defendants to make whole Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 14 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be detennined at trial.
6

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 260 Filed 04/16/2002 Page 7 of 7
F. Order Defendants to pay Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 14 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURy TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
NICHOLAS M. INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney
~~
EQUALEMWLOYMENTOPPOR~TY
COMMISSION Miami District Office Two South Biscayne Boulevard One Biscayne Tower Miami, Florida 33131 Phone - (305) 530-6004 Facsimile - (305) 536-4494
7

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al.,

i-·' f. " I . ,) ... ,j

-

,

~

(~Y\. G? 'L,

.,C. l"J"

'I-
I.-

0( 0,

rl_:-:~ ' , I i

~ ~

'- \

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CASE NO. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendant.
______________________ 1

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following:
Dkt. 113 Motion for Summary Judgment - Applebee's Not Proper Defendant
Dkt. 114 Memorandum Dkt. 115 Affidavit Dkt. 187 Response
Defendant Applebee's International, Inc. seeks the entry of summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant because Defendant was not an employer of the individual Plaintiffs, and because Defendant was not a "joint employer" or "integrated enterprise/single employer" with their employer, Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc.
In this Title VII case, Plaintiffs will be required to prove that Defendant Applebee's International, Inc. was their employer. Whether Defendant was Plaintiffs' employer depends upon whether

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 2 of 16
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Defendant is liable for the acts of its subsidiaries, Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. and Rio Bravo International, Inc.
The primary purpose of Title VII is remedial, and its aim is to eliminate employment discrimination by creating a federal cause of action to promote and effectuate its goals. To that end, Title VII is to be given a liberal construction, which includes a broad interpretation as to the employer and employee provisions. There is a tension between the broad interpretation accorded Title VII, and corporate law principles.
Businesses may incorporate to limit liability, and to isolate liabilities among separate entities. The doctrine of limited liability creates a strong presumption that a parent company is not the employer of its subsidiary's employees, and the courts have found otherwise only in extraordinary circumstances. See Frank v. U.S. West (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting Johnson v. Flowers Industries, Inc., 814 F.2d 978, 980-81 (4 th Cir. 1987).
I. Standard of Review
This circuit clearly holds that summary judgment should only be entered when the moving party has sustained its burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact when all the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sweat v. The Miller Brewing Co., 708 F.2d 655 (11th Cir. 1983). All doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Hayden v. First National Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 595 F.2d 994, 9967 (5th Cir. 1979), quoting Gross v. Southern Railroad Co., 414
2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 3 of 16
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1969). Factual disputes preclude summary judgment.
The Supreme Court of the United States held, in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986),
In our view the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id at 273 The court also said, "Rule 56(e) therefore requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate "specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex Corp. at p. 274.
II. Statement of Facts
1. Applebee's International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which was incorporated in October, 1987, with its principal place of business at Overland Park, Kansas. Applebee's International, Inc. is the franchising arm of the Applebee's restaurant system.
2. In March, 1995, a subsidiary of Applebee's International, Inc. acquired Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc., the owner of Rio Bravo Cantina chain, in a merger. Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Applebee's International, Inc. Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. is the operating arm of the Rio Bravo Cantina system.
3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 4 of 16
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP 3. In Fall, 1995, Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc.
became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rio Bravo International, Inc. Rio Bravo International, Inc. is the franchising arm of the Rio Bravo Cantina system.
4. Rio Bravo International, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Applebee's International, Inc.
5. As of December, 1998, Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. operated 40 Rio Bravo Cantina restaurants in seven states, and franchisees of Rio Bravo International, Inc. operated 26 Rio Bravo Cantina restaurants in nineteen states. Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. owned and operated the Clearwater store where the events occurred from which this case arose. The employees at the Clearwater Rio Bravo were employed directly by Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc.
6. In February, 1999, Chevy's, Inc. agreed to purchase the Rio Bravo Cantina concept from Innovative Restaurants Concepts, Inc., including the company-owned Rio Bravo restaurants and the franchisor rights to the franchisee restaurants. The sale was completed on April 12, 1999.
7. Plaintiff/Intervenors worked as servers and hostesses at Rio Bravo Cantina in Clearwater, Florida, from February, 1996 through 1998.
8. John Moore was the Human Resources Manager for Rio Bravo in 1998. John Moore testified he reported to John Prutsman when he was hired. (Dkt. 187, Exh. 5, Moore Deposition, p. 188). John Moore maintained personnel files for Rio Bravo employees in
4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 5 of 16
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Atlanta, and forwarded copies of those files to Applebee's in Kansas City, Kansas. (Moore Deposition, p. 189). John Moore conducted investigational interviews as to the incidents on which this case is based. John Moore testified that Applebee's legal counsel assisted him in preparing Rio Bravo's position statement to the EEOC (Moore Deposition, p. 91).
9. Patti Nash was the Director of Human Resources for Rio Bravo in 1998. Patti Nash reported to the President of Rio Bravo as well as to the Vice President of Human Resources for Applebee's International (Moore Deposition, p. 188).
10. John Prutsman was the Director of Human Resources for Applebee's International in 1998.
11. The Corporate Officers for Rio Bravo International Inc. are listed as: 1) CEO - Lloyd L. Hill; 2) CFO - George D. Shadid; 3) Secretary - Robert T. Steinkamp. (Dkt. 187, Ex. 8).
12. The Corporate Officers for Applebee's International, Inc. are listed as: 1) President - Lloyd L. Hill; 2) Treasurer George D. Shadid; 3) Secretary - Robert T. Steinkamp. (Dkt. 187, Exh. 8).
13. The Corporate Officers of Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. are listed as : 1) Lloyd L. Hill; 2) George D.Shadid; 3) Robert T. Steinkamp and 4) Abe J. Gustin Jr.
14. The sexual harassment policies of Rio Bravo and Applebee's International are identical (Dkt. 187, Exh. 6).
5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 6 of 16
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP III. Single Employer/Integrated Enterprise Theory
Under the "single employer" or "integrated enterprise" concept, two companies may be considered so interrelated that they constitute a single employer subject to liability under Title VII. In determining whether to treat two companies as a single employer, courts examine the following factors: 1) interrelation of operations, i.e. common offices, common record keeping, shared bank accounts and equipment; 2) common management, common directors and boards; 3) centralized control of labor relations and personnel; and 4) common ownership and financial control. In order to find a single employer, it is not necessary that each factor be met, and the Court notes that control over labor relations is the most significant factor. The "single employer" standard is relevant when "separate corporations are not what they appear to be, that in truth they are but divisions or departments of a 'single enterprise.'" See NLRB V. Deena Artware, Inc., 361 U.S. 398, 402 (1960).
A. Interrelation of Operations
Defendant argues that Applebee's, Rio Bravo and Innovative Restaurant Concepts did not share resources, equipment or employees. Applebee's charged any management services provided to Rio Bravo, such as site selection and marketing, as an expense to Rio Bravo. Defendant argues that Applebee's and Innovative Restaurant Concepts had separate payrolls. Defendant further argues that the quarterly informational meetings as to financial matters are consistent with a normal parent/subsidiary relationship, and other corporate formalities were preserved. Defendant argues that the use of Applebee's letterhead by Rio
6

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 7 of 16
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Bravo personnel does not establish an integrated enterprise.
Plaintiff responds that there are material factual disputes as to this issue based on the testimony of Chris Hemmings and John Moore. Chris Hemming was Vice President of Operations for Rio Bravo International. Chris Hemmings testified that he received stock options from Applebee's, that Rio Bravo store managers used Applebee's letterhead and logo, and at some time Rio Bravo shifted its payroll to Applebee's payroll system. (Hemmings Deposition, p. 102). Mr. Hemmings also testified that Applebee's Human Resources department documented discipline issues for Rio Bravo (Hemmings Deposition, pp. 189-190).
John Moore testified that Applebee's legal counsel, Robert Steinkamp and Tom McGrath, assisted him in planning the investigation of the sexual harassment complaints. In addition, John Moore testified that copies of personnel files for Rio Bravo employees were forwarded to the home office of Applebee's International, Inc., as well as merit increase documents for Rio Bravo employees. These records were put into Applebee's human resources information system.
B. Centralized Control of Labor Relations
In making the assessment of centralized control of labor relations, the Court should focus its inquiry on the parent's actual involvement in the particular circumstances giving rise to the litigation and then determine which entity made the final decisions regarding employment matters related to the person claiming discrimination. See Frank, 3 F.3d at 1363.
7

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 8 of 16
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Defendant argues that each entity established and
administered its own operating and management practices and personnel policies. Defendant argues that the critical factor is actual and active control of day-to-day labor practices, including hiring, firing, wages, hours or working conditions of the subsidiary's employees. Defendant contends Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. exercised this control (Steinkamp Affidavit) .
Defendant further argues that Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. trained and evaluated its own employees, and maintained its own job classifications and salary structures. Defendant further argues that the decision to discipline and terminate Rob Evans, the alleged harasser, was made by Chris Hemmings, Vice President of Operations for Innovative Restaurant Concepts, and Patty Nash, Director of Human Resources for Innovative Restaurant Concepts, with consultation from Rio Bravo Area Director Cote Turner, and John Moore, Manager of Human Resources. Rob Evans was notified of his suspension and termination on Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. letterhead. Defendant Applebee's further argues that the telephone hotline for sexual harassment complaints was routed to Atlanta, Innovative Restaurant Concept's home office, not to the horne office of Applebee's.
Defendant further argues that Applebee's oversight of its subsidiary operations does not establish actual and active involvement in the daily operations of Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc.
8

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 9 of 16
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Plaintiffs argue that the published sexual harassment
policies of Applebee's International and Rio Bravo International, Inc. are virtually identical. Plaintiffs have also argued that there is evidence that Rio Bravo personnel issues were handled by Applebee's Human Resources. Plaintiffs suggest that Plaintiffs are entitled to an inference that the parent corporation exercised a significant measure of control over the subsidiary's hiring decisions and financial status.
c. Common Management
Defendant argues that the board of directors and President of Rio Bravo and Innovative Restaurant Concepts had complete decision-making authority. Defendant contends that Applebee's did not participate in the preparation of Rio Bravo's or Innovative Restaurant Concept's pricing structure, and product plans, including menus or vendor contracts.
The corporate records provided by Plaintiffs establish that parent and subsidiary had common officers, and some officers were board members.
D. Common Ownership
Rio Bravo International, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Applebee's International, Inc. Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rio Bravo, International, Inc. Defendant argues that none of these entities is a sham.
9

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 10 of 16
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP E. Discussion
In considering whether the Court should treat Defendants as separate corporate entities, the Court will consider indicia of an interrelationship between the immediate corporate employer and the affiliated corporation which would justify belief by the employees that the affiliated corporation is responsible for the acts of the immediate employer. If such an interrelationship is present, it would constitute a departure from the normal separation between the corporate entities. See Armbruster v. Quinn, 711 F.2d 1332 (6th Cir. 1983).
In Armbruster v. Quinn, 711 F.2d 1332 (6th Cir. 1983), the Court notes that, in addition to handling the subsidiary's payroll accounting and receiving periodic financial reports from the subsidiary, the parent corporation handled the subsidiary's cash accounting and accounts receivable, provided administrative backup, monitored all of the subsidiary's sales shipments, negotiated and closed the purchase of the subsidiary's office building, and approved the subsidiary's office remodeling. The subsidiary's bank accounts were located at the parent's headquarters, and the subsidiary's management used the parent's credit cards and corporate aircraft.
In E.E.Q.C. v. Dolphin Cruise Lines. Inc., 945 F.Supp. 1550 (S.D. Fla. 1996), the related companies shared offices, used logos and letterhead interchangeably, advertised jointly, issued checks on each other's behalf, shared accounting services and bank accounts, and maintained personnel and other business records at the same office. In addition, one entity prepared the other's tax returns, budgets and annual statements.
10

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 11 of 16
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP In Armbruster and Dolphin, the facts supported a finding of
interrelated operations. However, the facts in this case are somewhat different, and the Court finds that the interrelatedness of the entities is not in excess of a normal parent/subsidiary relationship.
The most significant issue is the centralized control of labor relations. Applebee's and Rio Bravo are operated as distinct concepts. There is no rotation of employees between the two types of restaurants. The Court finds no evidence that Applebee's approved or directly participated in hiring and firing for Rio Bravo employees. Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that Applebee's played any role in the employment decisions and alleged discriminatory conduct affecting them. Each female Plaintiff alleges she was sexually harassed by a supervisor at the Rio Bravo restaurant. The alleged harasser, Rob Evans, was a Rio Bravo employee. The complaints of harassment were reported to and dealt with by Rio Bravo management. After charges were filed with the EEOC, an investigation was conducted, and Applebee's counsel participated at that time. However, the Court does not consider the later investigation to constitute participation in the alleged discriminatory practices at Rio Bravo, or an exercise of control over Rio Bravo's labor relations.
After consideration, the Court concludes that the Motion for Summary Judgment as to the "single employer" theory should be granted due to the absence of any evidence on the most significant factor, centralized control of labor relations.
11

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 12 of 16
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP IV. Joint Employer Theory
In order to find that Defendants are a "joint employer", the Court must find that one employer, while contracting in good faith with an otherwise independent company, has retained for itself sufficient control of the terms and conditions of employment of the employees who are employed by the other employer. The "joint employer" concept recognizes that the business entities involved are in fact separate, but that they share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment. Courts have considered the following factors in determining whether the "joint employer" test is met: 1) authority to hire and fire employees, promulgate work rules and assignments, and set conditions of employment; 2) day-to-day supervision of employees, including employee discipline; and 3) control of employee records, including payroll, insurance, taxes, etc. See Virgo v. Riviera Beach Associates, Ltd., 30 F.3d 1350, 1359-61 (11th Cir. 1994). In Virgo, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal found that actual control is a factor to be considered when deciding the "joint employer" issue, but the authority or power to control is also highly relevant.
In considering whether the "joint employer" relationship is the appropriate test for the factual scenario involved in the case, the Court considered the distinctions between the "joint employer" and "single employer" situation, as discussed in Clinton's Ditch Coop Co. V. National Labor Relations Bd., 778 F.2d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 1985) (identifying the distinctions between these two types of situations), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 814, 107 S.,Ct. 67, 93 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). In a "joint employer"
12

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 13 of 16
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP situation, no finding of a lack of arm's length transaction or unity of control or ownership is required, as in "single employer" cases.
In Clinton's Ditch, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals notes that whether Clinton's Ditch possessed sufficient control over the Fairfield Drivers to qualify as a joint employer is essentially a factual issue. The Court must determine whether two entities have chosen to handle certain aspects of their employer-employee relationships jointly. In Clinton's Ditch, the Second Circuit found that sufficient evidence of immediate control over the employees was not present, after considering hiring and firing, discipline, pay, insurance and records, supervision, and participation in the collective bargaining process.
In this case, the Court finds no evidence that Defendant Applebee's directly participated in hiring and firing of Rio Bravo employees, nor did Applebee's directly administer discipline. Day to day supervision of Rio Bravo employees was carried out directly by Rio Bravo management personnel. The evidence presented establishes only an indirect connection to pay and other aspects of labor relations.
After consideration, the Court concludes that the Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted as to the "joint employer" theory. Accordingly, it is
13

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 285 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 14 of 16 Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP
ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 113) is granted. Defendant Applebee's International, Inc. Is therefore dismissed as a Defendant in this case.
~ and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida on this
~~f September, 2002.
Copies to: All parties and counsel of record
14

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP FDoIcuLmeEnt 28C5 OPFilYed 09/09/2002 Date Printed: 09/10/2002

Page 15 of 16
+

Notice sent to:
Mlchael J. Farrel~, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gilbert Carrillo, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Scott T. Silverman, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Christopher D. Gray, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Angela E. Outten, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Mark G. Rodriguez, Esq. Law Offices of Mark G. Rodriguez, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602
Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq.

Case 8:99-cFv-o0w13le7r1-EWAhKi-rMe ABPoggDsocBuamneknet r2,85P.A.Filed 09/09/2002
501 E. Ke~ ~dy Blvd. P.o. Box 1~8 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Scott A. Fisher, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.o. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

P.A.

John William Robinson IV, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.o. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Page 16 of 16

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 289 Filed 09/23/2002 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
and
SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK AND MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,
Plaintiffllntervenors,
v.
RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC. and INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC. and APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a RIO BRAVO CANTINA
Defendants, and
CHEVYS, INC.,
Successor Defendant,
and
ROBERT EVANS,
Third-Party Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

99-13 71-CIV-T-17A

)

)

)

)

)

)

SECOND

) AMENDED COMPLAINT

)

)

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis ofsex and retaliation,

and to provide appropriate relief to Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and

similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 289 Filed 09/23/2002 Page 2 of 10
greater particularity in paragraph 14, the Commission alleges that Ms. Calvo, Ms. Ferek, Ms. Scarborough and similarly situated individuals were subjected to sexual harassment by Robert Evans, a management official ofthe Defendant corporations. The Commission further alleges that Defendants subsequently retaliated against Ms. Calvo, Ms. Ferek and Ms. Scarborough for complaining of the unlawful sexual harassment by subjecting them to adverse terms and conditions of employment, discharge and/or constructive discharge.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VIlli), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.c. § 1981A. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the Untied States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Rio Bravo International, Inc. has continuously been doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Clearwater, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. has continuously been
2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 289 Filed 09/23/2002 Page 3 of 10
doing business in the State ofFlorida and the City of Clearwater, and has continuously had at least 15 employees
6. At all relevant times, Applebee's International, Inc. has continuously been doing business in the State ofFlorida and the City of Clearwater, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant Chevys, Inc., (the "Successor Employer") has been a California-based corporation doing business in the State ofFlorida and the City ofClearwater and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
8. At all relevant times, Defendant Chevys, Inc. has been a "successor employer" within the meaning ofTitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964. EEOC v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers. Inc., 503 F.2d 1086 (6th Cir. 1974).
a. On or about April 1999, Chevys, Inc. purchased the business at issue in this case, the Rio Bravo Cantina restaurant located at 26200 U.S. Highway 19 North, Clearwater, Florida, 34621, from the three original corporate Defendants in this case Rio Bravo International, Inc., Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. and Applebee's International, Inc. b. Prior to the purchase, Chevys, Inc. had notice ofthe EEOC's claims against Rio Bravo International, Inc., Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. and Applebee's International, Inc. which have been raised in this lawsuit. Specifically, Chevy's Inc. had notice that the EEOC was investigating charges ofdiscrimination filed by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, and Melissa Scarborough, wherein each alleged sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment at the Rio Bravo Cantina restaurant located at 26200 U.S. Highway 19 North, Clearwater, Florida, 34621. The
3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 289 Filed 09/23/2002 Page 4 of 10
charges were expressly listed as "Pending Claims and Litigation" on Schedule 5.10 ofthe purchase and sale agreement negotiated by Applebee's International, Inc., and Chevys, Inc. c. As a result ofthe sale, the seller corporations no longer operate the business at issue in this lawsuit, no longer employee the staffand management ofthat business and no longer receive income from that business. As such, they are unable to fully provide the injunctive reliefsought by the EEOC in this action and, depending on the amount ofa judgment in favor ofEEOC, ifany, they may not be able to provide full monetary relief. d. From the date ofthe sale to the present there has been a substantial continuing of business operations by Chevys, Inc. at the Rio Bravo Cantina restaurant at issue in this lawsuit. e. From the date of the sale to the present, Chevys, Inc. has used the same facility that the sellers used, and has operated the restaurant under the same exact name as the sellers, i.e., "Rio Bravo Cantina." f. After the purchase of the Rio Bravo Cantina restaurant, Chevys, Inc. used substantially the same workforce as the seller to continue operations at the restaurant, including substantially the same foodservers and hostesses, the positions of the claimants in this lawsuit. g. After the purchase of the Rio Bravo Cantina restaurant, Chevys, Inc. continued to employ the same supervisory personnel as the sellers had employed including the restaurant's General Manager Benn Irwin and Area Director Cote Turner.
4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 289 Filed 09/23/2002 Page 5 of 10
h. After the purchase of the Rio Bravo Cantina restaurant by Chevys, Inc., the samejobs existed under substantially the same working conditions. Specifically, the restaurant continued to maintain job classifications such as cook, busboy, hostess, foodserver (wait staff), assistant manager, and general manager. 1. After the purchase of the Rio Bravo Cantina restaurant, Chevys, Inc. continued to use same equipment as that used by the sellers to operate the restaurant in accordance with the sellers' historical practices. Specifically, Chevys, Inc. purchased the restaurant containing equipment used by the sellers to prepare and serve Mexican-style food and drinks. J. After the purchase of the Rio Bravo Cantina restaurant, Chevys, Inc. maintained the restaurant as a Mexican Cantina restaurant concept and produced and served the same products as the sellers, i.e., Mexican-style food and drinks..
9. At all relevant times Rio Bravo International, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70 1(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h).
10. At all relevant times Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. has continuously been an employer 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).
11. At all relevant times, Applebee's International, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
12. At all relevant times, Chevys, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged
5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 289 Filed 09/23/2002 Page 6 of 10
in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 13. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek and Melissa Scarborough each filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle VII by Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been fulfilled. 14. Since at least February of 1996, Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Clearwater, Florida location in violation of Section 703(a) and Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a) and §2000e-3(a).
a. Sheri Calvo was subjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment.
b. Defendants retaliated against Sheri Calvo for complaining of the unlawful sexual harassment by subjecting her to adverse terms and conditions ofemployment, including unfavorable work schedules andjob assignments, and subsequently discharging her from her position.
c. Veronica Ferek was subjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute
6

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 289 Filed 09/23/2002 Page 7 of 10
an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment. d. Defendants retaliated against Veronica Ferek for complaining of the unlawful sexual harassment by forcing her to resign her position. e. Melissa Scarborough was subjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment. f. Defendants retaliated against Melissa Scarborough for complaining ofthe unlawful sexual harassment by discharging her from her position. g. Other similarly situated female employees of the Defendants were SUbjected to sexual harassment by Assistant Manager Robert Evans in the form ofunwelcome physical and verbal conduct ofa sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action when they knew or should have known of the sexual harassment. 15. The effect of the conduct complained of in paragraph 14 above has been to deprive Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees
7

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 289 Filed 09/23/2002 Page 8 of 10
because oftheir sex and/or in retaliation for their opposition to unlawful employment practices.. 16. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraph 14 above were
intentional. 17. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraph 14 above were
done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a pennanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in sexual harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis ofsex and/or opposition to an unlawful employment practice. B. Order Defendants, to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendants to make whole Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be detennined at trial, and other afflnnative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement and rightful place promotion or front pay. D. Order Defendants to make whole Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in
8

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 289 Filed 09/23/2002 Page 9 of 10
paragraph 14 above, including out of pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendants to make whole Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa
Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 14 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendants to pay Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 14 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
JURy TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
NICHOLAS M. INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel DELNERFRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney
~v~~~
MICHAEL J. FARRELL Supervisory Trial Attorney FL Bar No. 0053228
9

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 289 Filed 09/23/2002 Page 10 of 10
EQUALEN.WLOYNrnNTOPPOR~TY
COMMISSION Miami District Office Two South Biscayne Boulevard One Biscayne Tower Miami, Florida 33131 Phone - (305) 530-6004 Facsimile - (305) 536-4494
10

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 314 Filed 01/09/2003 Page 1 of 4

FIL,ED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ~

Y TAMPA DIVISION 03JMl

10: 02

l t EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

HI':!:,:.:

L.r f _dib't~

COMMISSION,

u> 11\' : C' •

!O,\

Plaintiff,

and

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREKand MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP

CHEVY'S, INC.,

Defendant,

and

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC. and INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC.,

Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v.

ROBERT EVANS,

__________T_h_ir_d_-P_a_rt_y_D_e_f_en_d_a_nt_. 1

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Motion to Compel Defendants to Supplement Their Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production Seeking Financial Worth Discovery (doc. 305). Plaintiff

A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 314 Filed 01/09/2003 Page 2 of 4

seeks financial worth information from Defendants Rio Bravo International (RBI) and Innovative Restaurant Concepts (IRC) for the years 2000 and 2001. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's original request for production only sought fmancial information for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998, and, therefore, Defendants were under no duty to supplement their response with fmancial information for 2000 and 2001. Upon consideration, it is
ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Motion to Compel Defendants to Supplement Their Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production Seeking Financial Worth Discovery (doc. 305) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at Tampa, Florida, on this ~ day of
January, 2003.

cc: Counsel of Record

MARK A. PIZZO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP F DI ocLumEent 3C14OP FYiled 01/09/2003 Date Printed: 01/10/2003

Page 3 of 4
6

Notice sent to:
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gilbert Carrillo, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Scott T. Silverman, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Christopher D. Gray, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Angela E. Outten, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Mark G. Rodriguez, Esq. Law Offices of Mark G. Rodriguez, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602
Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq.

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 314 Filed 01/09/2003 Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Scott A. Fisher, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.o. Box 1438
Tampa, FL 33601-1438

P.A.

John William Robinson IV, Esq.
Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.o. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Page 4 of 4

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 322 Filed 03/19/2003 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al.,
Plaintiff(s),

!! C:J
............... ",.1

vs.

CASE NO. 8: 99-CV-1371-T-17MAP

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants/ Third Party Plaintiffs,

vs.

ROBERT EVANS,

Third Party Defendant.
--------------------------/

ORDER This cause is before the Court on:

Dkt. 246 Third Party Complaint Dkt. 287 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Dkt. 292 Response
This case is a Title VII job discrimination case for claims of sexual harassment filed by employees at a Rio Bravo restaurant in Clearwater, Florida. Plaintiff and Plaintiffs/Intervenors seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. The conduct of Robert Evans while he was employed by Defendant Rio Bravo allegedly provoked the filing of the sexual harassment claims.

The following facts are not disputed for the purposes of this Motion:

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 322 Filed 03/19/2003 Page 2 of 7
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP
1. On or about July, 1994, Evans began his employment at the Rio Bravo Cantina in Clearwater, Florida as a bartender.
2 . . On or about October, 1996, Evans entered into the Manager in Training program at the South Tampa Rio Bravo Cantina.
3. On or about January, 1997, Evans completed the Manager in Training program, and was transferred back to the Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina as an assistant manager.
4. On or about March 13, 1998, Evans was terminated from his employment as the Clearwater Rio Bravo Cantina.
5. Robert Evans was terminated after allegations of acting improperly towards female crewmembers were raised against him, which allegations were investigated by Third Party Plaintiffs.
6. On or about April 1998, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek and Melissa Scarborough ("Intervenors") filed charges of sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Third-Party Plaintiffs.
7. On or about July 16, 1999, the EEOC filed this action against Third Party Plaintiffs claiming that Evans sexually harassed the Intervenors as well as numerous unidentified "similarly situated" female crewmembers.
8. The EEOC claims that Third Party Plaintiffs have violated Title VII and is seeking extensive monetary damages as well as injunctive relief against Defendants.
9. On or about July 15, 1999, Intervenors served their Motion to Intervene, which was granted on November 5, 1999.
10. The Intervenors claim that Third Party Plaintiffs violated Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act and are seeking extensive monetary damages. Their complaint is based on alleged verbal and sexual
2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 322 Filed 03/19/2003 Page 3 of 7
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP harassment by Evans. 11. Third Party Plaintiffs are potentially subject to significant monetary damages as a result of the alleged behavior of Evans. 12. Rio Bravo Cantina had an established policy against sexual and other forms of harassment. 13. Robert Evans knew of the policy against harassment.
Third Party Plaintiffs filed a two-count complaint against Third Party Defendant Evans. Count I is a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Count II is a claim for breach of implied employment contract.
I. Third Party Defendant's Motion
Third Party Defendant Evans requests the entry of judgment on the pleadings. Evans argues that Title VII and the FCRA prohibit the causes of action brought by Third Party Plaintiffs, and that the claims are premature. Third Party Defendant relies on Gilmore v. List & Clark Construction, 886 F.Supp. 1310 (D. Ka. 1994), and on Northwest Airlines, Inv. v. Transport Workers Union of America, 451 U.s. 77 (1981). In other words, Third Party Defendant Evans contends that although the claims presented are for breach of fiduciary duty and for breach of contract, the claims are for indemnity and contribution of any award on the Title VII and FCRA claims.
II. Third Party Plaintiffs' Response
Third Party Plaintiffs request the denial of the Motion for
3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 322 Filed 03/19/2003 Page 4 of 7
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Judgment on the Pleadings. They argue that Title VII expressly reserves non-conflicting state laws, and state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of implied contract are preserved because they do not require or permit the doing of any act which would be an unlawful employment practice under Title VII. In addition, Third Party Plaintiffs argue that the FCRA is interpreted in accordance with decisions construing Title VII, and therefore it does not preempt non-conflicting state laws. Third Party Plaintiffs have cited to cases which acknowledge that under Title VII there is no right to contribution or indemnity, but under state law claims, other courts have found a right to indemnity or contribution. See Biggs v. Surrey Broad. Co., 811 P.2d 111 (Okla.Ct. App. 1991) (employer entitled to indemnity under state law against its employee for amounts paid in settlement of civil rights claim for sexual harassment and discrimination perpetrated by employee) and Donajkowski v. Alpena Power Co., 596 N.W.2d 574 (1998).
Discussion:
The Court notes that in Northwest Airlines, Inv. v. Transport Workers Union of America, 451 U.S. 77 (1981), the Supreme Court stated that Title VII contains no provision touching upon contribution and there was no federal statute authorizing contribution. In the absence of any federal statute supporting a contribution action, the Supreme Court declined to impose one, finding that to be a legislative prerogative of Congress.
Third Party Defendant Evans has asked the Court to find that, as a matter of law, other state law claims that arise from
4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 322 Filed 03/19/2003 Page 5 of 7
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP the same operative facts as Title VII and FCRA claims are prohibited. Florida has adopted the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, Sec. 768.31, Florida Statutes. The factual situation in this case is in the nature of an intentional tort. After consideration, the Court concludes that Northwest Airlines, supra, is not controlling.
As to prematurity, the Court notes that third party claims based on the same facts as first party claims are brought in the same case as a matter of judicial economy. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 287) is denied.
~ and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida on this
~ ~f March, 2003.
ACOll Ppiaertsie~s~a~n~d~c~ou~n~se~~or~~~~__
5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP F IDoLcuEment C32O2 P FYiled 03/19/2003 Date Printed: 03/20/2003

Page 6 of 7
4

Notice sent to:
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gilbert Carrillo, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Scott T. Silverman, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Christopher D. Gray, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Angela E. Outten, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Mark G. Rodriguez, Esq. Law Offices of Mark G. Rodriguez, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602
Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq.

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 322 Filed 03/19/2003 Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Scott A. Fisher, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

P.A.

John William Robinson IV, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Page 7 of 7

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 340 Filed 04/15/2003 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

11: ,
It,

- " ),

,

l'

'- L .\.. L ",

~. - L ~ 'I \ J ",

Plaintiff,

and

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK and MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC. and INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC., d/b/a RIO BRAVO CANTINA,

Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v.

ROBERT EVANS,

Third-Party Defendant.
--------------------------/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of

Documents, Updated Damages Disclosures, and Depositions (doc. 318) and Plaintiff

EEOC's response thereto (doc. 335). As Plaintiffs have withdrawn their claims for economic

damages, the only issue before the Court is Defendants' request to depose PlaintiffMelissa

Scarborough and her psychiatrist, Dr. Debra Barnett. Defendants move to reopen discovery

to take these depositions because this information relating to Ms. Scarborough's claim of

A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 340 Filed 04/15/2003 Page 2 of 4

emotional distress was not provided until after discovery had closed. Although Defendants may not have known about Dr. Barnett, they previously reopened discovery to conduct two psychological evaluations of Ms. Scarborough in July 2001 by Drs. Stein and Otto, approximately one month after Dr. Barnett's sessions on May 4 and 22, 2001. Furthermore, Dr. Barnett is not listed on Plaintiffs' witness list', and Defendants have Dr. Barnett's records of her treatment of Ms. Scarborough since September 19, 2002. Defendants have not demonstrated Dr. Barnett could supply any additional information not provided by Drs. Stein and Otto. Therefore, I find Defendants have not demonstrated good cause to reopen discovery. See Middle District Discovery at 4. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED: 1. Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Updated Damages Disclosures, and Depositions (docs. 318-1,318-2) are MOOT. 2. Defendants' Motion to Compel Depositions (doc. 318-3) is DENIED. 3. Plaintiffs' Consented Motion for Extension of Time is MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on this /'-/ day of April, 2003.

cc: Counsel of Record

MARK A. PIZZO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

A072A (Rev.8182)

I Dr. Barnett is listed on Defendant's witness list with the caveat that she may be called depending on what she testifies to at her deposition.

-------------------------------------------
Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP F DI oLcumE ent C34O 0 P FYiled 04/15/2003 Page 3 of 4
Date Printed: 04/15/2003
Notice sent to:
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gilbert Carrillo, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Scott T. Silverman, Esq.
Zinober & McCrea, P.A.
201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A.
777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Angela E. Outten, Esq.
Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A.
777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Mark G. Rodriguez, Esq. Law Offices of Mark G. Rodriguez, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602
Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq.

Case 8:99F-covw-0l1e3r71W-EhAitKe-MBAoPggs DBocaunmkeenr,t 3P40.A. Filed 04/15/2003 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.o. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Scott A. Fisher, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.o. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

P.A.

John William Robinson IV, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.o. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Page 4 of 4

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 349

Filed 05/07/2003 Page 1 of 7
F \LED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff(s),

0"j I"~: ,

\ l ' . ",

" "

.

. ~ ", ", :. ,

and

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK and MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

Intervenor/Plaintiffs,

vs.

CASE NO. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants/ Third Party Plaintiffs,
v. ROBERT EVANS,
Third Party Defendant.

--------------------------------/

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on:
Dkt. 139 Motion for Summary Judgment Dkt. 195 Response Dkt. 338 Notice to the Court Dkt. 345 Response
This case is a hostile environment sexual harassment case. Defendant Rio Bravo International, Inc. and Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. seek the entry of summary judgment against

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 349 Filed 05/07/2003 Page 2 of 7
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as to the injunctive relief requested in paragraphs "A" and "8" on the Complaint's prayer for relief: (1) "enjoining the defendants, their officer, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them from engaging in sexual harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and/or opposition to an unlawful employment practice." and (2) ordering defendants to "institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities to females which eradicate the effects of its alleged past employment practices."
I. Defendants' Motion
Defendants argue that Plaintiff E.E.O.C. is not entitled to a permanent injunction in this case because a permanent injunction is appropriate only when: 1) an employer's record shows abundant evidence of a wide-spread pattern of past discrimination, and there exists a reasonable probability that violations will recur absent an injunction, and 2) where there is no consistent pattern of past discrimination by the employer, but at least one employee suffered discrimination, and, without an injunction, there remains a reasonable probability that violations will persist. Defendants argue that neither situation is present in this case, and that the evidence will show only incidents of alleged sexual harassment by one former manager at one of Defendants' former locations. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff E.E.O.C. cannot demonstrate that such practices are reasonably likely to persist absent an injunction, since the employment of the employees allegedly responsible for sexual harassment was terminated in 1998. Defendants no longer own the
2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 349 Filed 05/07/2003 Page 3 of 7
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP location where the alleged sexual harassment took place. Other managerial employees responsible for the administration of Defendants' sexual harassment policy are no longer employed by Defendants. In other words, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's request for an injunction is moot.
In their argument, Defendants rely on N.A.A.C.P. v. City of Evergreen, 693 F.3d 1367 (11th Cir. 1982); E.E.O.C. v. Rogers Bros., 470 F.2d 965 (5th Cir. 1972) (absent clear and convincing proof of no reasonable probability of further noncompliance with the law, a grant of injunctive relief is mandatory); Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546, 1561 (11 th Cir. 1986); James v. Stockam Valves & Fitting Co., 559 f.2d 310, 355 (5th Cir. 1977) (where past and ongoing discrimination exists, unless a Court can discern and identify clear and convincing evidence that there is no reasonable probability of further noncompliance, the District Court should enter a broad injunction.) Defendants also rely on E.E.O.C. v. Massey Yardley Chrysler Plymouth, 117 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 1997), in which the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the E.E.O.C. is normally entitled to injunctive relief where it proves discrimination against at least one employee when the employer fails to prove that future violations are not likely to occur.
II. Plaintiff's Response
Plaintiff responds that Defendants' request for summary judgment on the issue of injunctive relief is premature. While to date there has been no finding of the presence of intentional discrimination, that is an open issue to be resolved at trial.
3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 349 Filed 05/07/2003 Page 4 of 7
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Plaintiff further argues that the E.E.O.C. need not show the
presence of a pattern and practice of discrimination throughout Defendants' organization to be entitled to a permanent injunction against Defendants. Plaintiff relies on E.E.O.C. v. Massey Yardley Chrysler Plymouth, 117 F.3d 1244, 1253 (11 th Cir. 1997); E.E.O.C. v. Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc., 188 F.3d 695, 702 (6th Cir. 1999) (the E.E.O.C. need not demonstrate or allege a pattern or policy of discrimination in order to obtain a permanent injunction); E.E.O.C. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 188 695, 702 (6th Cir. 1999) (the E.E.O.C. may obtain general injunctive relief, under the equitable discretion of the district court, even when the E.E.O.C. only identifies one or a mere handful of aggrieved employees.); E.E.O.C. v. Pacific International Equities, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11238 (S.D. Fla. 2000); and E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543 (8 th Cir. 1998).
After consideration, the Court denies the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 1239) without prejudice. The presence of disputed factual issues precludes the entry of summary judgment. The Court has discretion to fashion injunctive relief, but it needs to know what the underlying wrong is to fashion an appropriate remedy. The open issues in this case include not only the presence of intentional discrimination, but the response of management and the effectiveness of its sexual harassment policy. Accordingly, it is
4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 349 Filed 05/07/2003 Page 5 of 7 Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP
ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 139) as to permanent injunctive relief is denied .
.~ and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida on this
~~f May, 2003.
Copies to: All parties and counsel
5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP F DI ocLumEent 3C4O 9 P FYiled 05/07/2003 Page 6 of 7
Date Printed: 05/07/2003
Notice sent to:
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gilbert Carrillo, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Scott T. Silverman, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Christopher D. Gray, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Angela E. Outten, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A.
777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Mark G. Rodriguez, Esq. Law Offices of Mark G. Rodriguez, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602
Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq.

Case 8:99-Fcvo-w01l3e7r 1W -EAhiKt-eMABPoggsDoBcuamnkeenrt,34P9.A. Filed 05/07/2003 501 E. Kennedy Blvd.
P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Scott A. Fisher, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

P.A.

John William Robinson IV, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.o. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Page 7 of 7

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 352 Filed 05/12/2003 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

FILE',D
"~tll (' 3:.; iI..',•.1\I 1{~_JV:-'u"
.. ,
. ~1. . . " ~ I i " . . :~ ",~,

Plaintiff(s),

and

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK and MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

Intervenor/Plaintiffs,

vs.

CASE NO. 8: 99-CV-1371-T-17MAP

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants/ Third Party Plaintiffs,
v. ROBERT EVAN S,
Third Party Defendant.

--------------------------------/

ORDER This cause is before the Court on:

Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt.

112 Motion for Summary Judgment 135 Motion for Summary Judgment 167 Deposition Excerpts 181 Response 192 Response 198 Deposition - Milcowitz 206 Deposition - Thomas

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 352 Filed 05/12/2003 Page 2 of 14
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP I. Claims of Gracey, Workman, Smith and Eberhardt
Plaintiff E.E.O.C. has notified the Court that Plaintiff is no longer seeking relief on behalf of Nicole Gracey, Sharlee Workman, Lesley Smith and Heather Eberhardt (Dkt. 341, pp. 5-6). Therefore the Court denies the Motion for Summary Judgment as to the claims of Gracey, Workman, and Smith (Dkt. 112) as moot and denies the Motion for Summary Judgment as to the claims of Eberhardt (Dkt. 135) as moot.
II. Standard of Review
This circuit clearly holds that summary judgment should only be entered when the moving party has sustained its burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact when all the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sweat v. The Miller Brewing Co., 708 F.2d 655 (11th Cir. 1983). All doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Hayden v. First National Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 595 F.2d 994, 9967 (5th Cir. '979), quoting Gross v. Southern Railroad Co., 414 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1969). Factual disputes preclude summary judgment.
The Supreme Court of the United States held, in Celotex Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986) ,
In our view the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to establish the
2

----"---
Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 352 Filed 05/12/2003 Page 3 of 14
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id. At 273.
The Court also said, "Rule 56(e) therefore requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate' specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex Corp., at p. 274.
III. Hostile Environment Sexual Discrimination in General
In Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 1999), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals articulates the standards to determine the presence of hostile environment sexual harassment. To establish a hostile environment sexual harassment claim under Title VII based on harassment by a supervisor, an employee must show: 1) that he or she belongs to a protected group; 2) that the employee has been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, such as sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature; 3) that the harassment must have been based on the sex of the employee; 4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and 5) a basis for holding the employer liable. Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 901 (11th Cir. 1982). The Court notes that the phrase "terms, conditions or privileges of employment" in Title VII is an expansive concept which sweeps within its ambit the practice of creating a working environment heavily charged with ethnic or racial discrimination.
3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 352 Filed 05/12/2003 Page 4 of 14
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Although Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination
clearly includes sexual harassment, Title VII is not a federal "civility code." Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 u.S. 75 (1988) ("We have never held that workplace harassment, even harassment between men and women, is automatically discrimination because of sex merely because the words used have sexual content or connotations.") Sexual harassment constitutes sexual discrimination only when the harassment alters the terms or conditions of employment. In hostile environment cases, an employer's harassing actions toward an employee do not constitute employment discrimination under Title VII unless the conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.
Establishing that harassing conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter an employee's terms or conditions of employment includes a subjective and an objective component. The employee must "subjectively perceive" the harassment as sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of employment, and this subjective perception must be objectively reasonable. The environment must be one that "a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and that the victim subjectively perceives to be abusive. The objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, considering all the circumstances.
The Court is required to consider the following factors in determining whether harassment objectively altered an employee's terms or conditions of employment: 1) frequency of the conduct; 2) severity of the conduct; 3) whether the conduct is physically
4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 352 Filed 05/12/2003 Page 5 of 14
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and 4) whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with the employee's job performance. Courts should examine the conduct in context, not as isolated acts, and determine under the totality of the circumstances whether the harassing conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of the plaintiff's employment.
IV. Factual Background
Kathryn Milcowitz was hired as a server by Rio Bravo in 1995, and was employed there when Robert Evans was the Assistant Manager in 1997 and 1998. In her deposition, Milcowitz testified that during her training, she was instructed on Rio Bravo's sexual harassment policy, and signed a form stating that she had read and understood the policy.
Kathryn Milcowitz testified that Robert Evans commented on her appearance, including her large breasts (Dkt. 193, pp. 1516), discussed the size of his penis on five occasions (Dkt. 198, p. 112), and discussed his favorite sexual positions (Dkt. 198, pp. 92-3). She further testified that Robert Evans unsnapped her bra on twenty occasions (Dkt. 198, p. 69), pushed himself against her while she was entering orders into the computer (Dkt. 198, p. 70), smacked her on the butt frequently (Dkt. 198, p. 71), and checked what type of underwear she was wearing by rubbing his hand on her low back (Dkt. 198, p. 75). Kathryn Milcowitz testified that she reported a bra-snapping incident to a manager (Dkt. 198, p. 57), and the conduct lessened after that. She did not complain about the continuing conduct.
5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 352 Filed 05/12/2003 Page 6 of 14
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Christina Lynn Thomas was hired as a server by Rio Bravo in
February, 1996, and was employed at the Clearwater Rio Bravo when Robert Evans worked there as an Assistant Manager in 1997 and 1998. She did not recall receiving an employee manual containing Rio Bravo's sexual harassment policy during her training.
Christina Lynn Thomas testified that Robert Evans tried to unsnap her bra on two occasions (Dkt. 206, pp. 45-7), and tried to pull her onto his lap on one occasion (Dkt. 206, p. 51). She further recalled incidents of hugging, tickling and pinching (Dkt. 206, pp. 51-2). Christina Lynn Thomas testified that she told Robert Evans to stop touching her, and pushed his hand away (Dkt. 206, p. 63). She never reported any incident to a manager. She further testified that Robert Evans made sexual comments on numerous occasions, such as ~I'd like to bang her," (Dkt. 206, p. 81) or referring to a Corvette as a ~pussymobile."(Dkt. 206, p. 82,84).
VI. Claims of Kathryn Milcowitz and Christina Thomas
Defendants seek summary judgment as to the claims of the Kathryn Milcowitz and Christina Thomas in this hostile environment sexual harassment case.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs Milcowitz and Thomas have not alleged sufficiently severe and pervasive sexual harassment, and that the undisputed facts show that Defendants are entitled to the affirmative defense established by Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (1998) and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (1998).
6

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 352 Filed 05/12/2003 Page 7 of 14
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP
A. Kathryn Milcowitz
Defendants contend that Kathryn Milcowitz admitted in her deposition that she had sexual discussions in a group setting which included Robert Evans, and Milcowitz, by her conduct, did not indicate that Evans' verbal comments were unwelcome. Defendants further contend that words which engender offensive feelings in an employee are insufficient to affect the conditions of employment. Defendants argue that, after considering all the circumstances, including the frequency of the conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance, the Court should find that the conduct directed to Kathryn Milcowitz is not actionable. Kathryn Milcowitz testified that she found Robert Evans' conduct inconvenient and annoying, but there is no evidence that it interfered with her job duties, and there is no evidence that she was subjected to discipline.
Plaintiff E.E.O.C. responds that Kathryn Milcowitz testified that she was humiliated by the words and actions of Robert Evans, and witnessed the same actions directed to other female employees. Plaintiff further argues that Kathryn Milcowitz testified that Rio Bravo should have done something to alter the behavior of Robert Evans.
The Court is required to assess the offensive acts in context, and examine the totality of the circumstances in determining whether there is an actionable hostile environment sexual harassment claim. The Court understands that the acts
7

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 352 Filed 05/12/2003 Page 8 of 14
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP complained of took place over a period of time in a casual dining restaurant in which managers were males, and some servers were young, unsophisticated females. In general, there was a congenial atmosphere. At times, the managers and servers would socialize, such as going out for drinks and dancing. At other times, the managers and employees would "hang out," and have conversations that included sexual jokes and sexual discussions. It was not uncommon for managers to flirt with or date servers. At some point, employees considered that the conduct of Robert Evans was no longer horseplay; other employees no longer "clowned around" with him, but were irritated by his conduct. As part of the backdrop of this claim the Court must also consider the claims of other employees. Some of those claims are pending, and some claims have been extinguished.
The Court notes that words and actions directed to Kathryn Milcowitz by Robert Evans were frequent, and she found them offensive. However, in light of Kathryn Milcowitz' explicit denial that she found the words and actions to be severe, or physically threatening, and her opinion that any interference with her work was annoying more than anything else, the Court concludes that the alleged discriminatory acts fall into the category of "offensive utterances" and "workplace tribulation" rather than sexual harassment. Kathryn Milcowitz admitted that, at the time, she found the acts directed to her merely offensive, and it was only later, after working in other situations, that she came to consider the acts to be sexual harassment. The Court concludes that the subjective element of sexual harassment is not present as to this claimant.
8

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 352 Filed 05/12/2003 Page 9 of 14
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP B. Christina Thomas
Defendants argue that the conduct directed to Christina Thomas was not frequent, was not severe or physically threatening, and it did not interfere with Thomas' work performance.
Plaintiff responds that the words and actions of Robert Evans that were directed to Christina Thomas were frequent, and she witnessed the same behavior directed to other employees.
Christina Lynn Thomas' testimony is that she considered the physical acts (hugs, tickles, pinches) directed to her to be flirting. These acts, although they were frequent, and unwelcome, did not interfere with her work, and she did not consider them to be physically threatening. Christina Lynn Thomas testified that she was humiliated by bra-snapping incidents.
After consideration, the Court concludes that the words and actions of Robert Evans as to Christina Lynn Thomas are not actionable sexual harassment. The subjective element of harassment is absent. The Court agrees with Defendant that this claim presents nothing more than the "ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the use of abusive language, genderrelated jokes and occasional teasing." Faragher, 118 S.Ct. at 2284.
c. Affirmative Defense
Defendants argue that they are entitled to rely on the
9

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 352 Filed 05/12/2003 Page 10 of 14
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP affirmative defense that: a) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior; and b) the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. The Court should consider evidence that the employer promulgated an antiharassment policy with complaint procedures, and should consider whether the employee unreasonably failed to use the complaint procedures, in applying the affirmative defense.
The Faragher and Ellerth defense is available if no tangible employment action is taken against the complaining employee. A tangible employment action is a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different job responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. at 2270.
Defendants argue that neither Milcowitz nor Thomas were subjected to a tangible employment action, and the affirmative defense is available to them. Defendants argue that Rio Bravo exercised reasonable care to prevent harassment by promulgating a written, effective sex harassment policy with appropriate complaint procedures which prohibited sexual harassment and which provided for multiple reporting mechanisms, and making the policy accessible to each employee.
Kathryn Milcowitz testified that she reviewed the sexual harassment policy as part of her training, and signed a form indicating that she read and understood the policy. Christina Thomas did not have a specific recollection.
10

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 352 Filed 05/12/2003 Page 11 of 14
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Defendants argue that Kathryn Milcowitz acted unreasonably
when, after complaining to the then-manager, Brandon Heinsohn, the alleged harassing conduct continued, and she did not against complain.
Defendants argue that Christina Thomas acted unreasonably when she did not report the alleged harassing conduct to any manager, and did not use the 800-number to report any harassing conduct.
Plaintiff E.E.O.C. responds that many employees complained of offensive remarks that made them feel uncomfortable, as well as unwanted physical conduct. Plaintiffs contends that Rio Bravo was on notice, or should have been on notice, of potential sexual harassment.
It is undisputed that Rio Bravo did have a sexual harassment policy. Kathryn.Milcowitz testified that she reported only one incident to a manager, and Christina Lynn Thomas testified she did not report any incidents. Because the Court has concluded that, as to Milcowitz and Thomas, the conduct of Robert Evans did not rise to the level of sexual harassment, it is not necessary for the Court to rule on the application of the affirmative defense. Accordingly, it is
11

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 352 Filed 05/12/2003 Page 12 of 14 Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP
ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 112) is qranted as to the claims of Milcowitz and Thomas, and otherwise denied as moot. The Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 135) as to the claim of Heather Eberhardt is denied as moot.
~ and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida on this
;I~ day of May, 2003.
ACollpipeasr~~ite~soa~n:d~c~o~u~ns:e:l :o:f~r=e:co:r;d~::~~~~~~~~~~~~:=~~~;;~~
12

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP FDoIcuLmeEnt 35C2 OPFileYd 05/12/2003 Page 13 of 14
Date Printed: 05/13/2003
Notice sent to:
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gilbert Carrillo, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Scott T. Silverman, Esq.
Zinober & McCrea, P.A.
201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Christopher D. Gray, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Angela E. Outten, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Mark G. Rodriguez, Esq. Law Offices of Mark G. Rodriguez, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602
Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq.

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 352 Filed 05/12/2003 Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd.
P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Scott A. Fisher, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

P.A.

John William Robinson IV, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Page 14 of 14

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 354 Filed 05/14/2003 Page 1 of 13

filED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

~

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

03 i':tH 14 :i 36

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

l..<:"" _,r\ ;
... ~~ _. - I l:~ fLCfdlJA T/~~';I ,'" j- LQftIDA

Plaintiff(s),

and

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK and MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

Intervenor/Plaintiffs,

vs.

CASE NO. 8: 99-CV-1371-T-17MAP

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants/ Third Party Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT EVANS,
Third Party Defendant.

------------------------------/

ORDER This cause is before the Court on:

Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt. Dkt.

157 Motion for Summary Judgment 159 Deposition - Blair
161 Motion for Summary Judgment 163 Deposition - Rush 181 Response

Blair Rush

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 354 Filed 05/14/2003 Page 2 of 13
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP This case is a hostile environment sexual harassment case.
Defendants seek summary judgment on the claims of Summer Blair and Laura Rush.
I. Standard of Review
This circuit clearly holds that summary judgment should only be entered when the moving party has sustained its burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact when all the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sweat v. The Miller Brewing Co., 708 F.2d 655 (11th Cir. 1983). All doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Hayden v. First National Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 595 F.2d 994, 9967 (5th Cir. 1979), quoting Gross v. Southern Railroad Co. 414 F.2d 292 (5th 1969). Factual disputes preclude summary judgment.
The Supreme Court of the United States held, in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986) ,
In our view the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id. At 273.
The Court also said, ~rule 56(e) therefore requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts show there is
2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 354 Filed 05/14/2003 Page 3 of 13
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex Corp. At p. 274.
II. Hostile Environment Sexual Discrimination in General
In Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238 (11 th Cir. 1999), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals articulates the standards to determine the presence of hostile environment sexual harassment. To establish a hostile environment sexual harassment claim under Title VII based on harassment by a supervisor, an employee must show; 1) that he or she belongs to a protected group; 2) that the employee has been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, such as sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other conduct of a sexual nature; 3) that the harassment must have been based on the sex of the employee; 4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and 5) a basis for holding the employer liable. Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 901 (11th Cir. 1982). The Court notes that the phrase "terms, conditions or privileges of employment" in Title VII is an expansive concept which sweeps within its ambit the practice of creating a working environment heavily charged with ethnic or racial discrimination.
Although Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination clearly includes sexual harassment, Title VII is not a federal "civility code." Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 u.S. 75 (1988) ("We have never held that workplace harassment, even harassment between men and women, is automatically discrimination because of sex merely because the words used have sexual content or connotations.") Sexual
3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 354 Filed 05/14/2003 Page 4 of 13
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP harassment constitutes sexual discrimination only when the harassment alters the terms or conditions of employment. In hostile environment cases, an employer's harassing actions toward an employee do not constitute employment discrimination under Title VIr unless the conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.
Establishing that harassing conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter an employee's terms or conditions of employment includes a subjective and an objective component. The employee must "subjectively perceive" the harassment as sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of employment, and this subjective perception must be objectively reasonable. The environment must be one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive. The objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, considering all the circumstances.
The Court is required to consider the following factors in determining whether the harassment objectively altered an employee's terms or conditions of employment: 1) the frequency of the conduct; 2) severity of the conduct; 3) whether the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and 4) whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with the employee's job performance. Courts should examine the conduct in context, not as isolated acts, and determine under the totality of the circumstances whether the harassing conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of the plaintiff's employment.
4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 354 Filed 05/14/2003 Page 5 of 13
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP IV. Factual Background
A. Summer Blair
Summer Blair was employed by Rio Bravo as a hostess from August, 1997 to January, 1998. She worked twenty hours a week. Robert Evans was her supervisor. Summer Blair testified that when she was hired she was informed of Rio Bravo's sexual harassment policy (Dkt. 159, p. 28), and was aware that sexual harassment should be reported to a manager (Dkt. 159, p. 29).
Summer Blair testified that Robert Evans frequently touched her waist, arm and shoulder, and would put his arm around her. (Dkt. 159, p. 31). She testified this occurred more than ten times (Dkt. 159, p. 34), but less than fifty times (Dkt. 159, p. 35). On one occasion, Robert Evans grabbed her chest, and she filed a formal complaint (Dkt. 159, p. 34). Summer Blair informed Jim McDonald and Philip Crenshaw (Dkt. 159, p. 139). After the complaint, Robert Evans telephoned Summer Blair, and she told him not to touch her again (Dkt. 159, p. 40). Later Philip Crenshaw asked Summer Blair if the situation had improved, and she told him it had, to the extent that Robert Evans was removed from the hostess stand (Dkt. 159, p. 42). Summer Blair further testified that after the formal complaint, Robert Evans did not speak to her or touch her (Dkt. 159, pp. 43-4).
Summer Blair testified that at times Robert Evans would comment on the appearance of customers (Dkt. 159, p. 46) and would say something of a "verbal sexual harassing nature" (Dkt. 159, p. 47) between one and five times per shift. At times he complimented her on her appearance (Dkt. 159, p. 66).
5

-----------------------~-~-~----
Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 354 Filed 05/14/2003

Page 6 of 13

Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Summer Blair testified that Robert Evans' conduct did not
prevent her from doing her job, and did not impact her performance in any way (Dkt. 159, p. 48). Other than the touching incident, Summer Blair testified that she did not regard Robert Evans' behavior towards her to be highly offensive (Dkt. 159, p. 67). She testified that after her complaint about Robert Evans, the atmosphere was less relaxed (Dkt. 159, p. 50), and Robert Evans was not easy to work with (Dkt. 159, p. 51). There were times when he did not permit her to leave early (Dkt. 159, p. 52). Summer Blair ended her employment at Rio Bravo because she had another job she liked better, was changing school schedules, and wanted to reduce her workload (Dkt. 159, p. 53).
Summer Blair testified that Robert Evans dealt with another hostess, Leslie Cucinotta, the same way he behaved toward her (Dkt. 159, p. 58). That is, Robert Evans touched Leslie Cucinotta's waist, and put his arm around her shoulders, when she was at the hostess stand (Dkt. 159, p. 58). She testified this was his general behavior to the hostesses (Dkt. 159, p. 58).
B. Laura Rush
Laura Rush was employed by Rio Bravo from 1997 through April, 1998. She began as a hostess and later became a server. Laura Rush testified that she recalled reading the employee handbook when she was hired (Dkt. 163, p. 24), including the sexual harassment policy. She testified that she knew she was supposed to report any problem as to harassment to a manager (Dkt. 163, p. 25).

6

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 354 Filed 05/14/2003 Page 7 of 13
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Laura Rush testified that Robert Evans unsnapped her bra
(Dkt. 163, p. 32) on one occasion, and also felt her legs to see if they were shaved (Dkt. 163, p. 32) on one or two occasions. In addition, Robert Evans put his hand on her lower back and her upper back (Dkt. 163, p. 35). Laura Rush further testified that Robert Evans' conduct was an "all-the-time" thing (Dkt. 163, p. 34, 35), and there were so many incidents and comments she could not recall them (Dkt. 163, p. 39).
On three or four occasions, Robert Evans asked for a kiss on the cheek before checking Laura Rush out for the night (Dkt. 163, pp. 35-6). On one occasion, Robert Evans attempted to kiss Laura Rush on the mouth, but she pushed him away and told him to stop (Dkt. 163, p. 36). Laura Rush did not make a complaint about the incident because she did not want to lose her job (Dkt. 163, p. 60). Later, when an investigation was conducted by Rio Bravo, she gave a written statement that the incident was "no big deal. (Dkt. 163, p. 62), meaning that it happened all the time.
Laura Rush testified that Robert Evans made comments on her appearance that had sexual content (Dkt. 163, p. 38) on four or five occasions. Laura Rush further testified that it was common knowledge that Robert Evans said sexual things to the servers, and touched them in an inappropriate manner (Dkt. 163, p. 47).
Laura Rush denied that Robert Evans' conduct did not prevent her from performing her job tasks (Dkt. 163, p. 44), although his conduct did make the situation uncomfortable.
Laura Rush testified she left her employment with Rio Bravo because she was dating Jim McDonald, a manager, which was not
7

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 354 Filed 05/14/2003 Page 8 of 13
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP permitted by Defendants' employment policies. Philip Crenshaw, the General Manager, became aware of the dating relationship, and Laura Rush was offered the choice of ending the relationship or her employment. (Dkt. 163, p. 50). She chose to end her employment with Rio Bravo.
V. Claims of Summer Blair and Laura Rush
Defendants seek summary judgment as to the hostile environment sexual harassment claims of Summer Blair and of Laura Rush because they did not suffer acts which were severe enough or pervasive enough to create a sexually hostile working environment. Defendants also argue that they are entitled to the affirmative defense established by Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (1998) and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (1998)
VI. Response
Plaintiff E.E.O.C. responds that the motion for summary judgment is due to be denied, because, based on the totality of the circumstances, the alleged conduct of Robert Evans meets the requirements for actionable sexual harassment. That is, the alleged conduct of Robert Evans is severe, pervasive and humiliating to the alleged victims. Plaintiff E.E.O.C. also argues that the consensual relationships between managers and employees reinforced the general atmosphere that the employees were there for the entertainment of the male managerial staff. Plaintiff further argues that the alleged conduct was unwelcome, and unreasonably interfered with the Claimants' work performance. Plaintiff further argues that Defendants cannot satisfy the
8

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 354 Filed 05/14/2003 Page 9 of 13
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Ellerth and Faragher defense.
VII. Discussion
The Court is required to assess the offensive acts in context, and examine the totality of the circumstances in determining whether there is an actionable hostile environment sexual harassment claim. The Court understands that the acts complained of took place over a period of time in a casual dining restaurant in which the managers were males, and the hostesses and servers were young, unsophisticated females. In general, there was a congenial atmosphere. At times, the managers and other employees would socialize outside of the workplace. It was not uncommon for managers to flirt with or date servers. It was common knowledge among the employees that Robert Evans often made comments with sexual content and often touched the employees by putting his arm around their shoulders or waist. At some point, employees considered that the conduct of Robert Evans was no longer horseplay; other employees no longer "clowned around" with him, but were irritated by his conduct. As part of the backdrop of this claim, the Court must also consider the claims of other employees. Some of those claims are pending, and some claims have been extinguished.
A. Summer Blair
The Court notes that the words and actions directed to Summer Blair were frequent, and the sexual content of those words and actions was unwelcome. The Court further notes that there was one incident that prompted a formal complaint to other managers at Rio Bravo, and Summer Blair testified that after the
9

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 354 Filed 05/14/2003 Page 10 of 13
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP complaint Robert Evans no longer touched or spoke to her. She was aware that Robert Evans directed similar words and actions to other employees. Summer Blair testified that Robert Evans' conduct did not prevent her from doing her job, and did not impact her performance in any way. She further testified that, other than the touching incident, she did not regard Robert Evans' behavior towards her to be highly offensive, although it made her uncomfortable.
After considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the severity of the conduct of Robert Evans as to Summer Blair does not meet the threshold established by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for a hostile environment sexual discrimination claim. The conduct of Robert Evans falls into the category of "offensive utterances" and "workplace tribulation" rather than actionable sexual discrimination.
B. Laura Rush
The Court notes that the words and actions directed to Laura Rush by Robert Evans were frequent, and were unwelcome. Laura Rush testified that Robert Evans' conduct did not prevent her from performing her job.
After considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the severity of the conduct of Robert Evans as to Laura Rush does not meet the threshold established by Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for a hostile environment sexual discrimination claim. The conduct of the alleged harasser falls into the category of "offensive utterances" and "workplace tribulation" rather than actionable sexual discrimination.
10

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 354 Filed 05/14/2003 Page 11 of 13
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP VII. Affirmative Defense
Defendants argue that they are entitled to rely on the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.
Both Summer Blair and Laura Rush admitted that they were aware of the Rio Bravo's sexual harassment policy. Summer Blair utilized the policy to interrupt the offensive conduct of Robert Evans. Laura Rush testified that she feared losing her job if she made a complaint.
Because the Court has concluded that, as to Blair and Rush, the conduct of Robert Evans does not rise to the level of actionable sexual harassment, it is not necessary for the Court to rule on the application of the affirmative defense. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 157) and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 161) are granted.
,/~ and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida on this
~~f May, 2003.
Copies to. All parties and counse
11

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP FDoIcuLmeEnt 35C4 OPFilYed 05/14/2003 Page 12 of 13
Date Printed: 05/14/2003
Notice sent to:
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gilbert Carrillo, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Scott T. Silverman, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A.
777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Angela E. Outten, Esq.
Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A.
777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Mark G. Rodriguez, Esq. Law Offices of Mark G. Rodriguez, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602
Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq.

Case 8:99-cFv-o0w13le7r1-EWAhKi-tMe ABPoggDsocBuamneknet r3,54P.AF. iled 05/14/2003 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.o. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Scott A. Fisher, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.o. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

P.A.

John William Robinson IV, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.o. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Page 13 of 13

 
 .· Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419

Filed 06/18/2003 Page 1 of 17
FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff(s),

and

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK and MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

Intervenor/Plaintiffs,

vs.

CASE NO. 8: 99-CV-1371-T-17MAP

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants/ Third Party Plaintiffs,
v. ROBERT EVANS,
Third Party Defendant.

--------------------------------/

ORDER This cause is before the Court on Defendant's Rule 50 Motions as to the following issues, and the responses.
In ruling on a Motion for Judgment as a matter of law, the district court must deny the motion unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is such that there can be only one conclusion. There must be a complete lack of evidence for the moving party to prevail.

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 2 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP I. Timely Filing of EEOC Charges for All Sexual Harassment at Issue
Defendants argue that under National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (2002), the allegations of sexual harassment prior to January 23, 1997, when Robert Evans returned to the Clearwater Rio Bravo as an Assistant Manager, cannot be found to be a continuing violation of the hostile environment sexual harassment claims after that date. Robert Evans had a break in service at the Clearwater Rio Bravo between October 7, 1996 and January 23, 1997. When Rob Evans left, he was a "coworker;" when he returned, he was a supervisor.
The Court has previously considered this issue fully (Dkt. 347). The break in service does not have any connection to an attempt to remediate the conduct of which Plaintiffs complained. The alleged harasser returned to the same workplace, and the same group of employees. The alleged sexual harassment in the form of a hostile environment continued. After consideration, the Court denies the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as to this issue.
II. Melissa Scarborough - Faragher Defense
Defendants seek judgment as a matter of law on the Faragher defense as to Melissa Scarborough. In sexual harassment cases, where the alleged harasser is the claimant's supervisor, and where the supervisor's harassment involves no tangible adverse employment action, the employer may avoid liability by establishing a two-pronged affirmative defense:
2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 3 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP 1. That the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior; and 2) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 u.s. 775, 807 (1998).
Defendants argue that the existence of a clear and effectively disseminated anti-harassment policy weighs heavily in favor of a conclusion that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent sexual harassment. Faragher, 524 u.s. at 807.
Defendants argue that an employer is not deemed to have notice of harassment sufficient to trigger its duty to take remedial action where the complaint is general, or fails to disclose the extent and precise nature of the underlying harassment. Madray v. Public Supermarkets, Inc., 208 F.3d, 1290, 1300 (11th Cir.), cert. denied. 531 u.S. 926 (2000); Coates v. Sundor Brands, Inc., 164 F.3d 1361, 1364-64 (11 th Cir. 1999). An employee must articulate her complaint in a manner reasonably calculated to trigger the supervisor's duty of care. Coates, 164 F.3d at 1364-66. Factors to consider include the time, place and manner of the complaint. Defendants argue that Melissa Scarborough's ~dog in heat" statement is subject to many interpretations, and is not specific enough to put Defendants on notice and trigger the duty to correct the alleged sexual harassment toward her.
Plaintiffs respond that Defendants have not proven as a matter of law that they took reasonable steps to prevent and
3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 4 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP correct the hostile environment at issue. They argue that notification of sexual harassment to the employer need not come solely from the victim for knowledge to be imputed to the employer. Sims. v. Health Midwest Physician Services Corp., 196 F.3d 915, 920 (8th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs further argue that Defendants have not proven as a matter of law that Melissa Scarborough unreasonably failed to take advantage of remedial measures.
Melissa Scarborough testified that she notified Rio Bravo of the alleged harassing conduct through her statement "I told Benn Irwin Rob is like a dog in heat and he needed to put a leash on him" while she was rolling silverware one night, sitting at a table with Benn Irwin, the General Manager. She also testified that Benn Irwin responded that he would talk to Rob. She further testified that the conduct of Rob Evans toward her did not change after that. Melissa Scarborough testified that she later complained to Shawn Corway, an Assistant Manager, that Rob Evans was a pervert. In her deposition, Melissa Scarborough testified that Shawn Corway was Rob Evans' "best friend" and that he laughed and said "I know" when she complained.
Melissa Scarborough testified that she also complained to Jim McDonald, an Assistant Manager, early in 1998, about incidents of being locked in the linen closet, panty checks and leg checks. She testified that Jim McDonald's response was that he did not schedule her for closing shifts with Rob Evans. Melissa Scarborough testified that she was aware of Rio Bravo's sexual harassment policy, and thought she was following it by going to her managers. She testified that she did not think of consulting the handbook and taking further actions to solve her
4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 5 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP complaints.
1. Sexual Harassment Policy
Defendants' sexual harassment policy was incorporated into the "Crewmember Handbook." Employees were required to acknowledge that they read and understood the policy during their orientation. Melissa Scarborough testified she was aware of the policy.
A. "Dog in Heat" Statement
The Court is required to evaluate the time, place and manner of the complaint. As far as this Court is concerned, there are no magic words required to make a complaint under the applicable policy. There is nothing that intrinsically prevents a verbal complaint from being a valid complaint. It is not necessary that a formal meeting be conducted, as long as the person to whom the complaint is presented has the authority to act on the complaint. Melissa Scarborough was sitting at a table with the General Manager, Benn Irwin, completing her side work. The context is informal, but the Court finds this factor is not dispositive.
The Court agrees that Melissa Scarborough's "dog in heat" statement is subject to interpretation, and does require that an inference be drawn. Defendants argue that one interpretation of the content of the statement is that Evans was out of control on a power trip as a manager, and acted like a dog in heat because he was moody and agitated. Defendants argue that the statement is not specific enough to trigger the duty to correct sexual harassment.
5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 6 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP After consideration, the Court finds that the statement is
specific enough to require a duty to investigate. "Dog in heat" behavior in a male/female context has a common-sense meaning, and the sexual component is obvious. "Dog in heat" behavior commonly includes a whole spectrum of conduct, from roaming, aggressive behavior to other males, and urine-marking to inappropriate mounting. "Roaming" refers to the males being drawn to females by scent, sometimes from great distances, and scent commonly triggers inappropriate mounting. The usual reason for inappropriate mounting behavior in a male to male context is a display of social dominance--to let the other dog know who is boss. Here, the complainant is a female, and that makes the sexual connotation somewhat more probable. Melissa Scarborough did not spell it out, and Benn Irwin did not inquire; he appeared to understand. Benn Irwin testified that Rob Evans was a good manager, although he was aggressive and needed work on his interpersonal skills. Reasonable care in this context would have included some inquiry to distinguish between dominance aggression and goofy, adolescent humping-of-anything-that-moves behavior, typical of a dog in heat. In other words, the Court finds that Benn Irwin had actual notice of Melissa Scarborough's sexual harassment complaint.
B. Failure to Take Advantage of Corrective/Preventive Measures
It is not disputed that Rio Bravo had a sexual harassment policy, and that the sexual harassment policy was disseminated. In some instances, the sexual harassment policy appeared to work. For example, when Summer Blair notified Rio Bravo managers of her complaint about Rob Evans, circumstances changed and Summer Blair testified that Rob Evans no longer spoke to or touched her in an offensive way.
6

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 7 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP The Court further notes while Melissa Scarborough worked at
Rio Bravo, she was attending college. Melissa Scarborough could read and write. The Crewmember Handbook is written in plain English. There were other means available to present a complaint besides notifying the General Manager. Melissa Scarborough admitted she did not pursue these measures.
The Court found above that Melissa Scarborough's statement was sufficiently specific. Defendants had actual notice of her complaint, or at least a duty to investigate. The conduct of which Melissa Scarborough complained continued, and she made additional complaints.
The Court cannot find a company sexual harassment policy to be effective where company practice indicates a tolerance towards harassment or discrimination. Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2002). Benn Irwin, a General Manager, testified that he resolved complaints on an ad hoc basis--he did whatever the complainant indicated she wanted. If a complainant requested a verbal warning, that is what he gave. Benn Irwin testified that he thought Rob Evans was good manager. The trier of fact could find that since Rob Evans contributed to the bottom line of Rio Bravo's profit margins, and probably any bonus received by general managers or area directors, the conduct complained of continued until it could no longer be ignored. The effectiveness of Rio Bravo's sexual harassment policy is a disputed issue.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants cannot use their own policies to insulate themselves from liability by placing an increased burden on complainants to provide notice
7

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 8 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP beyond that required by law. Madray v. Public Supermarkets, Inc., 208 F.3d 1290, 1301 (11th Cir. 2000); Breda v. Wolf Camera & Video, 222 F.3d 886, 889 (11th Cir. 2000). In addition, testimony in this case shows that other employees knew that the managerial staff was aware of Rob Evans' behavior through other complaints or direct observation, but did not act on that knowledge, so that further complaint would be futile.
After consideration, the Court denies the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as to Melissa Scarborough.
III. Sheri Calvo - Retaliation Claim - Causal Link
Sheri Calvo testified that after Rio Bravo became aware that she retained counsel, and had made a Charge of Discrimination to the EEOC, her work schedule was cut for a four-month period, and eventually she was not put on the schedule at all. Sheri Calvo was a long-time employee, and she testified that before the formal Charge of Discrimination, Rio Bravo accommodated her school schedule. Sheri Calvo testified that as a result of her alleged constructive discharge, she had serious financial difficulties.
There is testimony from other witnesses that Sheri Calvo was "hard to manage," that she wanted things her own way, and had conflicts with managers when they disagreed with her.
After consideration, the Court finds that Sheri Calvo has shown that she engaged in a statutorily protected activity, that there was an adverse employment action, and a causal link between the protected actions and the adverse employment action. Her
8

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 9 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP version of the facts could be accepted by the trier of fact, or Defendants' different version could be accepted. Because there are a number of material disputed fact issues as to Sheri Calvo, the Court denies the Motion for Judgment.
IV. Veronica Ferek - Retaliation Claim - Causal Link
Veronica Ferek testified that Defendant retaliated against her by not permitting other employees to help her with heavy food trays. She testified that she was given the choice of returning to a hostess job under the supervision of Rob Evans, or continuing as a server without assistance. She testified that she was unable to carry the heavy trays required for the server position, and was unable to work as a hostess due to the presence of Rob Evans. She testified that she elected to quit her job.
Veronica Ferek complained about Rob Evans' conduct to Dave Welch in 1996. She later complained to Benn Irwin, a General Manager, in August and December, 1996. She complained to Shawn Corway early in 1997. In 1997, Veronica Ferek worked as a server rather than a hostess in order to avoid Rob Evans. Philip Crenshaw, the General Manager who succeeded Benn Irwin in July, 1997, terminated Veronica Ferek's employment with Rio Bravo in August, 1997.
In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show: 1) a statutorily protected activity; 2) an adverse employment action; and 3) a causal link between the protected actions and the adverse employment decision. Weaver v. Casa Gallardo, Inc., 922 F.2d 1515 (11th Cir. 1991). The causal link element requires merely that the plaintiff establish that
9

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 10 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-l37l-T-l7MAP the protected activity and adverse action are not wholly unrelated. At a minimum, the plaintiff must establish that the employer was actually aware of the protected expression at the time it took adverse employment action. If a court finds that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Once the defendant meets the burden of production, the plaintiff must then demonstrate that the defendant's proffered explanation was a pretext for discrimination. The burden of persuasion always remains with the plaintiff.
The Court notes that there is no direct testimony that Philip Crenshaw knew about Veronica Ferek's prior complaints, but this issue is not dispositive because such knowledge can be established by circumstantial evidence. In Goldsmith v. City of Atmore, 996 F.2d 1155 (11th Cir. 1993), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a causal link was demonstrated by circumstantial evidence where the plaintiff presented deposition testimony which impeached the mayor's claim of ignorance that he knew of a certain conversation, together with evidence demonstrating a curious temporal proximity between the plaintiff's transfer and that conversation. In Weaver v. Casa Gallardo, Inc., 922 F.2d 1515 (11th Cir. 1991), the Eleventh Circuit found that plaintiff's circumstantial evidence satisfied the causal link where the plaintiff presented testimony that management personnel were acutely aware of the plaintiff's EEOC charge, as well as evidence of a sudden increase in plaintiff's negative reviews and heightened scrutiny of his job performance.
10

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 11 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP In this case, in order to meet the requirement of a causal
link, circumstantial evidence must be brought forth to show that Philip Crenshaw, the corporate agent who took the adverse action, was aware of Veronica Ferek's protected expression, and acted within the scope of his agency when he required Ms. Ferek to either carry her own trays, or return to work as a hostess.
The Court notes that some managers permitted Veronica Ferek to have assistance with her food trays. After consideration, the Court concludes that it is a close question whether the causal connection has been established. The Court will permit the jury to weigh the evidence on this issue and draw reasonable inferences. Therefore, the Court will deny the Motion for Judgment as a matter of law on the issue of retaliation as to Veronica Ferek.
The standard for establishing constructive discharge is high. To establish constructive discharge, the plaintiff must prove that working conditions were "so intolerable that a reasonable person in [her] position would have been compelled to resign. Griffin v. GTE Florida, Inc., 182 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11 th Cir. 1999). The standard for proving constructive discharge is higher than the standard for proving a hostile work environment claim. Hipp v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co., 252 F.3d 1208, 1231 (11~ Cir. 2002) ("To prove constructive discharge, the plaintiff must demonstrate a greater severity or pervasiveness of harassment than the minimum requirement to prove a hostile working environment.")
In assessing a constructive discharge claim, the plaintiff's subjective feelings about his employer are not considered. The
11

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 12 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP Court is required to employ an objective standard: whether a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would have been compelled to resign. See Doe v. Dekalb County Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 1441, 1450 (11th Cir. 1998). A plaintiff must show both that the employer's actions were impermissibly motivated and that the actions made plaintiff's working conditions so intolerable that her resignation is deemed involuntary.
The Court notes that Veronica Ferek is not complaining that she was constructively discharged due to the "ratcheting UpN of any alleged sexual harassment by Rob Evans. There is an open issue as to whether Philip Crenshaw knew that Veronica Ferek did not want to work under the supervision of Rob Evans. After consideration, the Court will deny the Motion for Judgment as a matter of law as to constructive discharge.
V. Punitive Damages
Defendants request judgment as a matter of law on the issue of punitive damages as to Melissa Scarborough, Veronica Ferek, and Leslie Cucinotta. Defendants concede that Sheri Calvo and Rene Brown have submitted admissible evidence that individuals above the store level allegedly knew of their claims.
Defendants rely in Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2002), Kolsted v. American Dental Ass'n, 527 u.S. 526 (1999) and Dudley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 166 F.3d 1317 (lph Cir. 1999).
In Miller, supra, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals explains that "punitive damages may only be considered in cases
12

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 13 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP where the discriminating employee was high upon on the corporate hierarchy" or where "higher management countenanced or approved his behavior."
In Kolstad, supra, the Supreme Court held that employers may assert a good faith defense to vicarious liability for punitive damages where the "employment decisions of managerial agents are contrary to the employer's good faith efforts to comply with Title VII." A plaintiff must come forward with substantial evidence that the employer acted with actual malice or reckless indifference to his federally protected rights. Malice or reckless indifference is established by a showing that the employer discriminated in the face of the knowledge that its actions would violated federal law.
In Dudley, supra, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that punitive damages should not be assessed as to the decisions of managerial agents at the store level of a large corporation, where there was no evidence that any official above the store level had knowledge of the discriminatory acts undertaken by two individuals at one of its thousands of stores.
Defendants argue that Melissa Scarborough, Veronica Ferek and Leslie Cucinotta, have not established that a management official above the store level was aware of the alleged sexual harassment toward them. Defendants argue that judgment as a matter of law is therefore appropriate.
Plaintiff EEOC responds that the Court must consider the following factors as to the assertion of punitive damages:
13

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 14 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP
a) the degree, nature and egregiousness of Defendant's conduct; b) nature, extent and severity of harm to the claimant; c) the duration of the alleged discriminatory conduct; d) the existence and frequency of past discriminatory conduct; e) the actions of the defendant after being informed of the discriminatory conduct; f) evidence of a concealment or "coverup" by Defendant; g) proof of threats or deliberate retaliatory conduct of defendant.
Plaintiff argues that the conduct complained of is egregious and outrageous, and that there is testimony from Marion Wolfe that from 1995 onward the complained of conduct was ignored and minimized. Instead, the managerial staff allegedly paid lip service to their sexual harassment policy and allowed the offensive conduct to continue. Plaintiff argues that the offensive conduct was frequent, and continued for a considerable period of time.
Plaintiff further argues that Defendants did not take any steps to address the alleged harassment, and instead of rendering discipline, Defendants promoted and financially rewarded the alleged harasser.
Plaintiff argues that there is testimony from John Moore, Defendants' Human Resources Officer, that Defendant was unable to corroborate allegations of sexual harassment, and that Defendants' took prompt remedial action. However, John Moore also asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege when asked if he made misrepresentations to the EEOC.
Plaintiff further argue there was retaliation against employees Blair and Calvo after each made a formal complaint.
14

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 15 of 17
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP After consideration, the Court grants the Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law on the issue of punitive damages as to Melissa Scarborough, Veronica Ferek and Leslie Cucinotta. There are some troubling aspects to this case. However, it is plain that Defendants have a corporate structure in place, and that there was a means to communicate with higher management, i.e. management above the local level. In this Circuit, ordinarily punitive damages are not awarded against employers who may be liable only by implication of law. To get punitive damages, a Title VII plaintiff must show either that the discriminating employee was "high up on the corporate hierarchy," or that "'higher management' countenanced or approved [his] behavior." In this case, there was one alleged harasser at one store, and no evidence that levels of management above the local level were aware of the alleged conduct as to Ferek, Scarborough and Cuccinotta until 1998, when Rob Evans' employment was terminated.
Notwithstanding this ruling, the issue of punitive damages as to Sheri Calvo and Rene Brown remains available for resolution by the jury.
~t.and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida on this
~day of June, 2003.
,
Copies to: All parties and counsel of reco
15

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 16 of 17 F I L E COP Y
Date Printed: 06/19/2003
Notice sent to:
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gilbert Carrillo, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Kenneth Lawrence Gillespie, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Carla J. Von Greiff, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Tampa Area Office 501 E. Polk St., Suite 1020 Tampa, FL 33602
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Scott T. Silverman, Esq.
Zinober & McCrea, P.A.
201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A.
777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Angela E. Outten, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd.

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 419 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 17 of 17 Palm Harbor, FL 34683

Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A.
777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683

Mark G. Rodriguez, Esq. Law Offices of Mark G. Rodriguez, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602

Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Scott A. Fisher, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker,
501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

P.A.

John William Robinson IV, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.O. Box 1438
Tampa, FL 33601-1438

 
 . Case 8·:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 420

Filed 06/18/2003 Page 1 of 10
FILEa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

,~ !'
,- ." I

Plaintiff(s),

and

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK and MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

Intervenor/Plaintiffs,

vs.

CASE NO. 8: 99-CV-1371-T-17MAP

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants/ Third Party Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT EVANS,
Third Party Defendant.

--------------------------------/

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the Rule 50 Motion of Third Party Defendant Robert Evans, and the response of Third Party Plaintiff.
In ruling on a Motion for Judgment as a matter of law, the district court must deny the motion unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is such that there can be only one conclusion. There must be a complete lack of evidence for the moving party to prevail.

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 420 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 2 of 10
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP I. Rule 50 Motion - Robert Evans
Third Party Defendant Evans raises the issue of whether Rio Bravo has stated that the exclusive remedy for a breach of their policies, as to the breach of contract claim and breach of fiduciary duty claim, was termination of Robert Evans' employment with Rio Bravo.
Rio Bravo argued that compliance with policy statements could supply a term and condition of the implied oral contract that is the subject of third party complaint. Accepting as true that Rio Bravo has established that an implied oral contract existed, after considering all the evidence, the uncontroverted evidence, based on Rio Bravo policy, Exh. 204, p. 23, is that in cases of stealing, Rio Bravo would report it to the police and refer the matter to the court system. Several witnesses have stated that fact. In Ex. 204, Rio Bravo states that it is their policy that if an employee is driving a Rio Bravo vehicle or their own vehicle on Rio Bravo business, Rio Bravo will hold the employee responsible for any accidents, fines or violations. The policy specifically contemplates those instances in which Rio Bravo will refer employees to the court system.
Third Party Defendant argues that Rio Bravo should not be heard to say that their policies do not contemplate when they are going to take an employee to civil court for an event that gives rise to liability for Rio Bravo. This is a State of Florida claim; respondeat superior and dangerous instrumentality doctrine would hold Rio Bravo responsible for an accident caused by a Rio Bravo employee. The sexual harassment policy which is the subject of Rio Bravo's pleading states without reservation of
2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 420 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 3 of 10
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP rights that an employee may be terminated for violation of the sexual harassment policy.
Ex. 204, p. 30, states the conditions under which an employee may be terminated. One condition for termination is disregard or violation of a posted, known, written or verbal company rule procedure or policy. This is an affirmative statement that if policies are violated, the company will terminate the employee. The only testimony from all witnesses is that there is no reason that anyone who works for Rio Bravo would contemplate that they are going to be sued for violation of the sexual harassment policy. The last witness, Mr. Crenshaw, testified that the Crewmember Handbook was presented to the crewmembers without any opportunity to negotiate. Therefore, any ambiguity in the written document should be construed against the drafter. The Handbook is a contract of adhesion to a crewmember, with no opportunity to change its provisions.
Third Party Defendant argues that Rio Bravo has not proven up the existence of an implied contract, and, if it is found that Rio Bravo has done so, the exclusive remedy is the termination of Robert Evans.
Third Party Defendant argues, as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, any fiduciary duty arose solely through contractual employment relationship with Rio Bravo. Any limitation contained within the contract would also limit Rio Bravo's ability to bring a cause of action under any theory unless they reserved the ability to sue Robert Evans. Rio Bravo reserved only the ability to terminate the employee at will.
3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 420 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 4 of 10
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP II. Response - Rio Bravo
Third Party Plaintiff Rio Bravo responds that the fact that Rio Bravo did not state in its handbook that it could sue Robert Evans does not prevent it from suing Robert Evans under any viable theory. For example, an employee could be sued for misappropriation of trade secrets, or indemnification for actions that occurred at the restaurant under the Uniform Contribution of Tortfeasors Act, or a suit for replevin of stolen or wrongfullytaken property. The Court has previously denied a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on this issue (Dkt. 322). Third Party Plaintiff argues that an oral contract has been established. Robert Evans signed the sexual harassment policy attesting that he knew of the policy as part of the contractual relationship. Robert Evans violated that term to the extent Plaintiff/Intervenors are able to recover against Rio Bravo in this case.
As to the fiduciary duty claim, the claim arises outside of any contractual relationship. It is implied as a matter of law that employees have a fiduciary duty to their employer. Part of that duty is to comply with policies. The policy of Rio Bravo was against sexual harassment. To the extent that Plaintiff/Intervenors and/or the EEOC are able to recover from Rio Bravo in this case, Robert Evans violated his fiduciary duty by violating the policy against sexual harassment. Fiduciary duty is not tied to any specific contractual relationship; it arises as a matter of law. Any limitation on the fiduciary duty of Robert Evans cannot be implied from the Crewmember Handbook.
4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 420 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 5 of 10
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP III. Reply - Robert Evans
Third Party Defendant argues that the examples above are specifically referred to in the Handbook since they involve stealing. As to indemnification, Third Party Defendant was not sued under the Uniform Contribution of Tortfeasors Act. Third Party Defendant argues that Third Party Plaintiff waived the right to sue for breach of fiduciary duty by not stating that explicitly in the Handbook.
Discussion:
In the previous Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Court acknowledged that under Title VII there is no right to contribution or indemnity, but, under state law claims, other courts have found a right to indemnity or contribution. See Biggs v. Surrey Broad. Co., 811 P.2d 111 (Okla.Ct.App. 1991) (employer entitled to indemnity under state law against its employee for amounts paid in settlement of civil rights claim for sexual harassment and discrimination perpetrated by employee); Donajkowski v. Alpena Power Co., 596 N.W.2d 574 (1998).
The Court notes that Third Party Defendant urged the Court to find that the argument of Third Party Plaintiffs elevates form over substance, and requested the Court to follow the dictate of Congress and the Florida Legislature to prevent Third Party Plaintiffs from shifting liability by indemnity or contribution.
The Court previously considered that the factual situation in this case is in the nature of an intentional tort. Florida law allows for indemnity and contribution claims, and Florida has
5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 420 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 6 of 10
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP adopted the Uniform Contribution among Tortfeasors Act., Sec. 768.31, Florida Statutes. In a general way, Florida law does support an action for breach of contract. However, the Court has given further consideration to cases involving assertion of rights based on employee manuals, and the Court reconsiders its previous ruling.
The employer/employee relationship is the oral contract in this case. The policies outlined in the Crewmember Handbook are not the terms of the contract; they are unilateral expressions of firm policy. Under Florida law, an at-will employee cannot rely on an employee manual as a basis for enforceable contract rights. Florida courts have rejected attempts by employees to create enforceable contract rights based on the policies outlined in employee manuals.
Under Florida law, policy statements contained in employment manuals do not give rise to enforceable contract rights in Florida unless they contain specific language which expresses the parties' explicit mutual agreement that the manual constitutes a separate employment contract. Muller v. Stromberg Carlson Corp., 427 So.2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Unless Rio Bravo establishes such a separate written agreement, there can be no breach of contract action. If employees cannot rely on the employer manual for enforceable contract rights, the Court cannot find that an employer can do so.
There was an oral contract of an indefinite term between Rio Bravo and Rob Evans. He agreed to perform an Assistant Manager's duties and Rio Bravo agreed to compensate him for his performance. The Court is not aware that there is any separate
6

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 420 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 7 of 10
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP agreement that transforms the unilateral policies of Rio Bravo, including its sexual harassment policy, into enforceable contract rights. Therefore, the Court qrants the Rule 50 Motion for breach of contract.
II. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Under Florida law, a fiduciary relationship is defined as follows:
The relation and duties need not be legal; they may be moral, social, domestic or personal. If a relation of trust and confidence exists between the parties (that is to say, where confidence is reposed by one party and a trust accepted by the other, or where confidence has been acquired and abused), that is sufficient as a predicate for relief. Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 421 (1927). A fiduciary relationship may be implied by law, and such relationships are "premised upon the specific factual situation surrounding the transaction and the relationship of the parties. Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). A fiduciary relation exists between two persons when one of them is under a duty to act for the other on matters within the scope of the relation. In this case, Rob Evans was a managerial employee for Defendant, and acted on its behalf.
7

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 420 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 8 of 10 Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP
After consideration, the Court finds that issues remain for the trier of fact as to the claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The Court therefore denies the Rule 50 Motion as to breach of fiduciary duty.
~ and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida on this
~~f June, 2003. ACollpipesarttioe~s::an-d~~co~u~n~s;e}l ~o~f~reeccOL~__________
8

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP F DIocLumEent 4C20OPFYiled 06/18/2003 Page 9 of 10
Date Printed: 06/19/2003
Notice sent to:
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gilbert Carrillo, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Kenneth Lawrence Gillespie, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Carla J. Von Greiff, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Tampa Area Office 501 E. Polk St., Suite 1020 Tampa, FL 33602
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Scott T. Silverman, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A.
777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Angela E. Outten, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd.

Case 8:99-cPva-l0m137H1a-ErbAoKr-,MAFPL D34o6cu8m3 ent 420 Filed 06/18/2003 Page 10 of 10

Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A.
777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683

Mark G. Rodriguez, Esq. Law Offices of Mark G. Rodriguez, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602

Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

Scott A. Fisher, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.o. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

P.A.

John William Robinson IV, Esq. Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.O. Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 481 Filed 03/02/2005 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

and

CASE NO. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK and MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs,
ROBERT EVANS,
Third Party Defendant.
/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on:
Dkt. 467 Defendants' Post-Trial Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law
Dkt. 473 Plaintiff Intervenor's Response Dkt. 474 Plaintiff EEOC's Response
Defendants request that the Court set aside the punitive damages award in this case pursuant to Rule 50(b), reduce the punitive damages award to a constitutionally acceptable level, or order a remittitur or new trial on the issue of punitive damages.

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 481 Filed 03/02/2005 Page 2 of 8
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP I. Standard of Review
The standard of review for the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law is whether, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the evidence so strongly points in favor of one party that reasonable men could not reach a contrary verdict. Iervolino v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 796 F.2d 1048, 1419 (llthCir. 1986).
11. Defendants1 Motion
Defendants argue that Rio Bravo had a well-publicized policy forbidding sexual harassment, gave training on sexual harassment to new employees and managers, and established a grievance procedure for sexual harassment complaints. Defendants argue that when corporate human resources was informed, Rob Evans' employment was promptly terminated following an investigation pursuant to Defendants1 policies. Defendants argue that pursuant to Kolstad v. American Dental Assrn, 527 U.S. 526 (1999), these actions establish a good faith effort to prevent and punish sexual harassment as a matter of law. Defendants argues that the failure of mid-level managers to follow the Defendants' policies, even if true, is not sufficient to hold the corporate Defendants liable for punitive damages.
111. Responses
Plaintiff EEOC and Plaintiff-Intervenors have responded in opposition to Defendants' request.
Plaintiff points out that the prior Rule 50 Motion as to the

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 481 Filed 03/02/2005 Page 3 of 8
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP issue of punitive damages (Dkt. 416) did not include Sheri Calvo and Renee Brown. Defendants conceded that there was admissible evidence that Sheri Calvo and Renee Brown complained to individuals above the store level. The Court found that the issue of punitive damages as to Sheri Calvo and Rene Brown was available for resolution by the jury.
The Court granted the prior Rule 50 Motion as to Plaintiffs Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough and Leslie Cucinotta, finding that there was one alleged harasser at one store, and no evidence that levels of management above the local level were aware of the harassing conduct (Dkt. 474). Later the Court reconsidered that ruling as to Veronica Ferek based on testimony demonstrating notice to upper management of her complaints.
The Court previously found that the effectiveness of Defendants1 written anti-discrimination policy was a question for the jury. The Court previously found that complaints made to the Area Director level were sufficient to constitute complaints to "higher management" for purposes of punitive damages. The Court notes that Defendants' Human Resources officer testified at trial that Area Directors were included in Rio Bravo's definition of "upper management." Defendants have not made any argument that convinces the Court to revisit those rulings.
After consideration, the Motion for Judgment as a matter of law is denied.

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 481 Filed 03/02/2005 Page 4 of 8
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP IV. Constitutionality of Punitive Damages Award
Defendants argue that the punitive damages award in this case exceeds constitutional limits because the punitive damages are 30 times the compensatory damages awarded. Defendants rely on State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct. 1513
(2003)(citing BMW of N. Am., Inc. v Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)) .
Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenors object to any reduction of punitive damages. Plaintiff EEOC argues that each award has already been reduced to comply with the statutory cap of $300,000, which takes into account an amount the legislature has deemed reasonable and appropriate.
This case was brought pursuant to Title VII, a statutory scheme which identifies the prohibited conduct as well as the potential range for financial penalties applicable to the prohibited conduct.
In order to satisfy due process requirements, an award of punitive damages must be based on conduct in a single state where the tortious conduct occurred, and must reflect a legitimate state interest in punishing and deterring that conduct. See Johansen v. Combustion Ensineerins, Inc., 170 F.3d 1320 (llth Cir. 1999).
It is undisputed that the employment discrimination complained of in this case took place within a restaurant located in Clearwater, Florida. The State of Florida has a statutory scheme in place in the form of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, and, before that, the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, in

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 481 Filed 03/02/2005 Page 5 of 8
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP punishing and deterring the conduct complained of in this case. The Court finds that the award of punitive damages is based on tortious conduct that occurred within the State of Florida and that there is a legitimate state interest in punishing and deterring that conduct.
In BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (l996), the Supreme Court analyzed three "guideposts" in deciding whether a punitive damages award is unconstitutionally excessive. The BMW guideposts include: 1) the "degree of reprehensibility" of the wrongdoing; 2) "the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered by [the plaintiff] and [her] punitive damages award"; and 3) "the difference between this remedy and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases." 517 U.S. 559, 575 (1996). In applying the guideposts, courts should also consider whether the amount of punitive damages serves the interest of deterrence.
A. Degree of Reprehensibility
The Court notes that the "degree of reprehensibility" is the most important factor in determining the reasonableness of a punitive damages award. In conducting reprehensibility analysis, the Supreme Court noted certain factors to consider. These factors include: 1) whether the injury caused physical harm; 2) whether the tortious conduct demonstrated an indifference to, or a reckless disregard of, the health or safety of others; 3) whether the target was financially vulnerable; 4) whether the conduct involved repeated actions; and 5) whether the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery or deceit. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Cam~bell,538 U.S. 408 (2003).

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 481 Filed 03/02/2005 Page 6 of 8
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP 1. As to physical harm, the conduct complained of caused
emotional distress and humiliation rather than a physical injury.
2. The conduct complained of continued for an extended period of time. There was a training program in place, but in practice higher management tolerated the sexual harassment of employees. This demonstrates indifference to the health and safety of Defendants' employees.
3. There was no evidence of financial vulnerability.
4. The conduct complained of continued for an extended period of time and was repetitive. A number of different targets presented complaints.
5. There was evidence of a sham investigation and cover-up; therefore the Court concludes that the conduct complained of involved deceit. John Moore, Defendants' Human Resources Office testified that Defendant was unable to corroborate allegations of sexual harassment, and Defendants took prompt remedial action. John Moore also asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege when asked if he made misrepresentations to the EEOC. The jury could draw an adverse inference from this testimony. The jury did not accept Defendantsr argument that Defendants made good faith efforts to comply with Title VII. The Court's reading of the verdict is that the jury found that Defendants' profit motive was more important to Defendants than compliance with Title VII, and this conduct should be deterred.

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 481 Filed 03/02/2005 Page 7 of 8
Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP After consideration, the Court concludes that the conduct
complained of in this case meets the definition of reprehensible conduct.
B. Ratio to Actual Damages
In Campbell, supra, the Supreme Court states that few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process. However, the Supreme Court explained that in some situations a higher ratio may be appropriate where a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that there will be some situations in which "the combination of a small damages award and a strong state interest in deterrence of a particular wrongful act may justify 'ratios higher than might otherwise be acceptable.'" EEOC v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 616
(llthCir. 2000) (quoting Johansen, 170 F.3d at 1338).
After consideration, the Court concludes that the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages is justified in this case.
C. Comparable Cases
There are no other civil or criminal penalties for the conduct complained of in this case. Title VII identifies prohibited conduct, and the statutory scheme plainly identifies the potential range of financial penalties for such conduct. The Court has already reduced the amounts awarded by the jury to

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 481 Filed 03/02/2005 Page 8 of 8

Case No. 8:99-CV-1371-T-17MAP
amounts within the statutory cap. The award in this case does not "shock the judicial conscience" of the undersigned, and "constitute a denial of justice."

Based on the above guideposts, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to reduce the punitive damages award to a constitutionally acceptable level.

V. Remittitur and New Trial

Defendants argues that Defendants did not engage in any reprehensible conduct, and made good efforts to comply with Title VII. The Court previously found that there was a jury question as to whether Defendants made a genuine effort to comply with Title VII, and the jury found adversely to Defendants. After consideration, the Court denies the request for remittitur and new trial. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendantsf Post-Trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Dkt. 467) is denied.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida on this

yad'-NX

of March, 2005.

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 1 of 16

VERDICT FORM SHERI CALVO

A. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

1. As to Rob Evans' conduct occurring prior to becoming an Assistant Manager on October 7, 1996, under the Court's instructions to you, do you find that Sheri Calvo has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

She was subjected to unwelcome harassment on the basis of her sex that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive working environment and that Defendants knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action?

Answer

Yes ~

No ,

If your answer to Question 1 was "Yes," you have found in favor of Sheri Calvo with respect to her claim of sexual harassment occurring prior to October 7, 1996. If your answer to Question 1 was "No," you have found in favor of Defendants with respect to this claim.
Proceed to Question 2.

2. As to Rob Evans' conduct as an Assistant Manager occurring subsequent to January 23, 1997, under the court's instructions to you, do you fmd that Sheri Calvo has proven, by a preponderance ofthe evidence, that:

She was subjected to unwelcome harassment on the basis of her sex that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive working environment

Answer Yes .::i..-

No

If your answer to Question No.2 was "Yes," proceed to Question No.3. If your answer to Question No.2 was "No," proceed to Question No.4, as instructed therein.

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 2 of 16

3. Under the circumstances of this case and the court's instructions to you, as to harassment occurring subsequent to January 23, 1997, do you find that Defendants have proven, by the preponderance of the evidence,

(a) That Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior in the workplace?

Answer

Yes

No

(b) That Sheri Calvo unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or co'rrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.

Answer

Yes

No

If your answer to Questions 3(a) and 3(b) were both "Yes," then you have found in favor of the Defendants with respect to Sheri Calvo's claim of sexual harassment occurring after January 23, 1997. If you responded "No" to either Question 3(a) or 3(b) then you have found in favor of Sheri Calvo with respect to this claim.

Proceed to Question 4.

B. RETALIATION

4. Under the court's instructions to you, do you find that Sheri Calvo has proven, by the preponderance of the evidence, that:

(a) She reasonably complained to management in good faith about sexual harassment by Rob Evans or reasonably filed her EEOC charge in good faith?

Answer

Yes ~

No

(b) That Defendants imposed upon her a serious and material change in the terms, conditions or privileges of her employment, as viewed by a reasonable person in the circumstances?

Answer

Yes

No

2

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 3 of 16

(c) That her complaints and/or charge of discrimination were a substantial motivating cause that made a difference in the Defendants' decision to do so?

Answer

Yes

No

If all of your answers to Question Nos. 4(a) -(c) were "Yes," proceed to Question No.5. If not, proceed to Question No.6, as instructed therein.

5. . Under the court's instructions to you, do you find that Defendants have proven, by the preponderance of the evidence, that Defendants would have imposed this/these change(s) in the terms, conditions, or privileges of Sheri Calvo's employment for other reasons, even in the absence of consideration of her complaints and/or charge?

Answer

Yes

No

If your answer to Question No.5 is "Yes," then you have found in favor of the Defendants with respect to Sheri Calvo's claim of retaliation. If your answer to Question No.5 was "No," then you have found in favor of Sheri Calvo with respect to this claim.

Proceed to Question No.6 only if you have found in favor of Sheri Calvo with respect to any of her claims of sexual harassment and/or retaliation. If you have not found in favor of Sheri Calvo with respect to any of her claims of sexual harassment or retaliation, proceed to the Questions for the next Claimant.

C. DAMAGES

6. Under the court's instructions to you, do you find that Sheri Calvo has proven, by the preponderance of the evidence, that she should be awarded damages to compensate for humiliation, emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience?

Answer Yes .:¥.-

No

If your answer to Question 6 is "Yes", then proceed to Question 7. If your answer to question 6 is "No", then proceed to Question 8.

3

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 4 of 16

7. What amount of damages should Sheri Calvo be awarded to compensate her for the humiliation, emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience caused by the Defendants?

8. Under the court's instructions to you, do you find that, with respect to any sexual harassment of Sheri Calvo by Robert Evans, actions of Defendants' officials, above the General Manager level,justify an award of punitive damages?

Answer

Yes ~

No

9. Under the court's instructions to you, do you find that, with respect to any retaliation against Sheri Calvo by the Defendants, actions of Defendants' officials, above the General Manager level, justify an award of punitive damages?

Answer

Yes

No x

If your answer to Questions 8 and/or 9 is "Yes", then proceed to Question 10. If your answer to Questions 8 and 9 are both "No", then proceed to the Questions for the next Claimant.
10. What is the appropriate amount of punitive damages that should be assessed against the Defendants for their conduct toward Sheri Calvo.

$ $00,.000

4

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 5 of 16

VERONICA FEREK

A. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

11. As to Rob Evans' conduct occurring prior to becoming an Assistant Manager on October 7, 1996, under the Court's instructions to you, do you find that Veronica Ferek has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

She was subjected to unwelcome harassment on the basis of her sex that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive working environment and that Defendants knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action?

Answer

Yes ~

No

If your answer to Question 11 was "Yes,": you have found in favor of Veronica Ferek with respect to her claim of sexual harassment occurring prior to October 7, 1996. If your answer to Question 11 was "No," you have found in favor of Defendants with respect to this claim.
Proceed to Question 12.

12. As to Rob Evans' conduct as an Assistant Manager occurring subsequent to January 23, 1997, under the court's instructions to you, do you find that Veronica Ferek has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

She was subjected to unwelcome harassment on the basis of her sex that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive working environment

Answer

Yes ~

No

If your answer to Question No. 12 was "Yes," proceed to Question No. 13. If your answer to Question No. 12 was "No," proceed to Question No. 14, as instructed therein.

5

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 6 of 16

13. Under the circumstances of this case and the court's instructions to you, as to harassment occurring subsequent to January 23, 1997, do you find that Defendants have proven, by the preponderance of the evidence,

(a) That Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior in the workplace?

Answer

Yes

No

(b) That Veronica Ferek unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.

Answer

Yes

No

If your answer to Questions 13(a) and 13(b) were both "Yes," then you have found in favor of the Defendants with respect to Veronica Ferek's claim of sexual harassment occurring after January 23, 1997. If you responded "No" to either Question 13(a) or 13(b) then you have found in favor of Veronica Ferek with respect to this claim.

Proceed to Question 14.

B. RETALIATION

14. Under the court's instructions to you, do you find that Veronica Ferek has proven, by the preponderance of the evidence, that:

(a) She reasonably complained to management in good faith about
sexual harassment by Rob Evans or reasonably filed her EEOC charge in good faith?

Answer

Yes -X-

No

(b) That Defendants imposed upon her a serious and material change in the terms, conditions or privileges of her employment, as viewed by a reasonable person in the circumstances?

Answer

Yes -X-

No

6

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 7 of 16

(c) That her complaints and/or charge of discrimination were a substantial motivating cause that made a difference in the Defendants' decision to do so?

Answer

Yes

No

If all of your answers to Question Nos. 14(a) -(c) were "Yes," proceed to Question No. IS. If not, proceed to Question No. 16, as instructed therein.

15. . Under the court's instructions to you, do you find that Defendants have proven, by the preponderance of the evidence, that Defendants would have imposed this/these change(s) in the terms, conditions, or privileges of Veronica Ferek's employment for other reasons, even in the absence of consideration of her complaints and/or charge?

Answer

Yes

No

If your answer to Question No. 15 is "Yes," then you have found in favor of the Defendants with respect to Veronica Ferek's claim of retaliation. If your answer to Question No. 15 was "No," then you have found in favor of Veronica Ferek with respect to this claim.

Proceed to Question No. 16 only if you have found in favor of Veronica Ferek with respect to any of her claims of sexual harassment and/or retaliation. If you have not found in favor of Veronica Ferek with respect to any of her claims of sexual harassment or retaliation, proceed to the Questions for the next Claimant.

C. DAMAGES

16. Under the court's instructions to you, do you fmd that Veronica Ferek has proven, by the preponderance of the evidence, that she should be awarded damages to compensate for humiliation, emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience?

Answer

Yes -X-

No

If your answer to Question 16 is "Yes", then proceed to Question 17. If your answer to question 16 is "No", then proceed to Question 18.

7

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 8 of 16

17. What amount of damages should Veronica Ferek be awarded to compensate her for the humiliation, emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience caused by the Defendants?

18. Under the court's instructions to you, do you find that, with respect to any sexual harassment of Veronica Ferek by Robert Evans, actions of Defendants' officials, above the General Manager level, justify an award of punitive damages?

Answer

Yes ~

No

19. Under the court's instructions to you, do you fmd that, with respect to any retaliation against Veronica Ferek by the Defendants, actions of Defendants' officials, above the General Manager level, justify an award of punitive damages?

Answer

Yes

No

If your answer to Questions 18 and/or 19 is "Yes", then proceed to Question 20. If your answer to Questions 18 and 19 are both "No", then proceed to the Questions for the next Claimant.
20. What is the appropriate amount of punitive damages that should be assessed against the Defendants for their conduct toward Veronica Ferek.

$ '500 000 I

8

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 9 of 16

RENE BROWN

A. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

21. As to Rob Evans' conduct occurring prior to becoming an Assistant Manager on October 7, 1996, under the Court's instructions to you, do you find that Rene Brown has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

She was subjected to unwelcome harassment on the basis of her sex that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive working environment and that Defendants knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action?

Answer

Yes ~

No

If your answer to Question 21 was "Yes," you have found in favor of Rene Brown with respect to her claim of sexual harassment occurring prior to October 7, 1996. If your answer to Question 21 was "No," you have found in favor of Defendants with respect to this claim.
Proceed to Question 22.

22. As to Rob Evans' conduct as an Assistant Manager occurring subsequent to January 23, 1997t under the court's instructions to you, do you find that Rene Brown has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

She was subjected to unwelcome harassment on the basis of her sex that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive working environment

Answer

Yes ~

No

If your answer to Question No. 22 was "Yes," proceed to Question No. 23. If your answer to Question No. 22 was "No," proceed to Question No. 24, as instructed therein.

9

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 10 of 16

23. Under the circumstances of this case and the court's instructions to you, as to harassment occurring subsequent to January 23, 1997, do you find that Defendants have proven, by the preponderance of the evidence,

(a) That Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior in the workplace?

Answer

Yes

No

(b) That Rene Brown unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.

Answer

Yes

No

If your answer to Questions 23(a) and 23(b) were both "Yes," then you have found in favor of the Defendants with respect to Rene Brown's claim of sexual harassment occurring after January 23, 1997. If you responded "No" to either Question 23(a) or 23(b) then you have found in favor of Rene Brown with respect to this claim.

Proceed to Question No. 24 only if you have found in favor of Rene Brown with respect to her claims of sexual harassment occurring prior to October 7, 1996, or subsequent to January 23, 1997. If you have not found in favor of Rene Brown .with respect to either of those claims, proceed to the Questions for the next Claimant.

B. DAMAGES

24. Under the court's instructions to you, do you find that Rene Brown has proven, by the preponderance of the evidence, that she should be awarded damages to compensate for humiliation, emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience?

Answer

Yes X

No

If your answer to Question 24 is "Yes", then proceed to Question 25. If your answer to question 24 is "No", then proceed to Question 26.

10

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 11 of 16

25. What amount of damages should Rene Brown be awarded to compensate her for the humiliation, emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience caused by the Defendants?

26. Under the court's instructions to you, do you fmd that, with respect to any sexual harassment of Rene Brown by Robert Evans, actions of Defendants' officials, above the General Manager level, justify an award ofpunitive damages?

Answer

Yes ---X-

No

If your answer to Question 26 was "Yes", then proceed to Question 27. If your answer to Question 26 is "No", then proceed to the Questions for the next Claimant.
27. What is the appropriate amount of punitive damages that should be assessed against the Defendants for their conduct toward Rene Brown.

$ 500•.coa

11

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 12 of 16

MELISSA SCARBOROUGH

A. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

28. As to Rob Evans' conduct as an Assistant Manager occurring subsequent to January 23, 1997, under the court's instructions to you, do you find that Melissa Scarborough has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

. She was subjected to unwelcome harassment on the basis of her sex that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive working environment

Answer

Yes ~

No

If your answer to Question No. 28 was "Yes," proceed to Question No. 29. If your answer to Question No. 28 was "No," you have found in favor of the Defendants with respect to Melissa Scarborough's claim of sexual harassment and you should proceed to the questions for the next Claimant.

29. Under the circumstances of this case and the court's instructions to you, as to harassment occurring subsequent to January 23, 1997, do you find that Defendants have proven, by the preponderance of the evidence,

(a) That Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior in the workplace?

Answer

Yes

No

(b) That Melissa Scarborough unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.

Answer

Yes

x No

If your answer to Questions 29(a) and 29(b) were both "Yes," then you have found in favor of the Defendants with respect to MeUssa Scarborough's claim of sexual harassment occurring after January 23, 1997. If you responded "No" to either Question 29(a) or 29(b) then you have found in favor of Melissa Scarborough with respect to this claim.

Proceed to Question No. 30 only if you have found in favor of Melissa 12

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 13 of 16

Scarborough with respect to her claim of sexual harassment occurring subsequent to January 23, 1997. If you have not found in favor of Melissa Scarborough with respect to this claim, proceed to the Questions for the next Claimant.

B. DAMAGES

30. Under the court's instructions to you, do you find that Melissa Scarborough has proven, by the preponderance of the evidence, that she should be awarded damages to compensate for humiliation, emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience?

Answer

Yes ~

No

If your answer to Question 30 is "Yes", then proceed to Question 31. If your answer to question 30 is "No", then proceed to the questions for the next Claimant.

31. What amount of damages should Melissa Scarborough be awarded to compensate her for the humiliation, emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience caused by the Defendants?

13

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 14 of 16

LESLIE CUCINOTTA

A. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

32. As to Rob Evans' conduct as an Assistant Manager occurring subsequent to January 23, 1997, under the court's instructions to you, do you find that Leslie Cuccinotta has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

She was SUbjected to unwelcome harassment on the basis of her sex that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive working environment

Answer

Yes -X-

No

If your answer to Question No. 32 was "Yes," proceed to Question No. 33. If your answer to Question No. 32 was "No," then you have found in favor of the Defendants with respect to Leslie Cuccinotta's claim of sexual harassment and should proceed to the questions for Robert Evans.

33. Under the circumstances of this case and the court's instructions to you, as to harassment occurring subsequent to January 23, 1997, do you find that Defendants have proven, by the preponderance of the evidence,

(a) That Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior in the workplace?

Answer

Yes

No

(b) That Leslie Cuccinotta unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.

Answer

Yes

No

If your answer to Questions 33(a) and 33(b) were both "Yes," then you have found in favor of the Defendants with respect to Leslie Cuccinotta's claim of sexual harassment occurring after January 23, 1997. If you responded "No" to either Question 33(a) or 33(b) then you have found in favor of Leslie Cuccinotta with respect to this claim.

14

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 15 of 16

Proceed to Question No. 34 only if you have found in favor of Leslie Cuccinotta with respect to her claim of sexual harassment occurring subsequent to January 23, 1997. If you have not found in favor of Leslie Cuccinotta with respect to this claim you should proceed to the questions for Robert Evans.

B. DAMAGES

34. Under the court's instructions to you, do you find that Leslie Cuccinotta has proven, by the preponderance of the evidence, that she should be awarded damages to compensate for humiliation, emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience?

Answer

Yes ~

No

If your answer to Question 34 is "Yes", then proceed to Question 35. If your answer to question 34 is "No", then proceed to the questions for Robert Evans.

35. What amount of damages should Leslie Cuccinotta be awarded to compensate her for the humiliation, emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and inconvenience caused by the Defendants?

15

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 432 Filed 06/20/2003 Page 16 of 16

ROBERT EVANS

As to the claim relating to Robert Evans, do you find from a preponderance of the evidence:

1. (a) That Robert Evans breached his fiduciary duty with Defendants.

Answer

Yes ~

No

(b) If "Yes," that Defendants have suffered loss as a proximate result of Robert Evans' failure to exercise diligence and good faith in matters relating to his employment with Defendants?

Answer Yes --k..

No

(c) If "Yes," what is the amount of damage, if any, that should be assessed against Robert Evans?

Answer - .• •

7 (SO,OCD - ~'~jy-~o~';)n"C!
J..~ \\v..f'S.

Date

16

 
 Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 488 Filed 03/23/2005 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

SHERI CALVO, VERONICA FEREK AND

)

MELISSA SCARBOROUGH,

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

RIO BRAVO INTERNATIONAL, INC. and

)

INNOVATIVE RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, )

INC. d/b/a RIO BRAVO CANTINA,

)

)

Defendants,

)

and

)

)

CHEVYS, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-1371-CIV-T-17A

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST CHEVY’S, INC.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or the “Commission”), and Defendant Chevy’s, Inc. (“Chevy’s”), through their respective attorneys, stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims brought by EEOC against Chevys in this action, with each party bearing

Case 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP Document 488 Filed 03/23/2005 Page 2 of 2

its own costs and attorneys’ fees.1 A proposed order approving this stipulation is attached.

Respectfully Submitted,

By: ERIC DREIBAND General Counsel

JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel

DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Counsel

s/ Michael J. Farrell Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Fl. Bar No.: 0053228 EEOC 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., #2700 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 530-6004 Fax: (305) 536-4494 Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC

By: s/ Kevin Zwetsch Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. Fl. Bar No.: 962260 P.O. Box 1438, Tampa, Florida 33601 Ph. (813) 228-7411 Fax (813) 228-8313 Attorneys for Chevy’s, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 23, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: Kevin D. Zwetsch, kzwetsch@fowlerwhite.com, Christopher D. Gray, fgo@florinroebig.com, Scott T. Silverman, ssilverman@zmlaw.com, Mark G. Rodriguez, mgrlaw@tampabay.rr.com.

/s Michael Farrell MICHAEL FARRELL Supervisory Trial Attorney

1. In or about March of 2002 , this Court granted EEOC’s motion to amend its complaint in this case to add Chevy’s Inc. as a named Defendant in this case. Subsequently, on or about September 9, 2002, the Court granted EEOC’s and Chevy’s Joint Motion to sever the claims against Chevy’s, Inc. from the substantive claims against the original Defendants. This stipulation serves to dismiss those claims brought by EEOC against Chevy’s in that severed action.
2

 
 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...
CLOSED, MAP, SL DOC
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP

EEOC v. Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, et al Assigned to: Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Date Filed: 06/11/1999 Date Terminated: 03/18/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Carla Johanna Von Greiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Tampa Area Office 501 E. Polk St., Ste. 1000 Tampa, FL 33602 813/202-7903 Fax: 813/228-2045 Email: carla.vongreiff@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Delner Franklin-Thomas Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Suite 2700 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6001 Email: delner.franklin-thomas@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gilbert Carrillo Law Office of Gilbert Carrillo P.A 2651 SW 109 Avenue Davie, FL 33328-1003 954/258-4565 Fax: 305/530-6121 Email: g2651carrillo@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth Lawrence Gillespie Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

1 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

Intervenor Plaintiff Sheri Calvo

Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6010 Email: kenneth.gillespie@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Farrell Jill S. Schwartz & Associates, PA Suite 200 180 Park Ave N Winter Park, FL 32789 407/647-8911 Fax: 407/628-4994 Email: mfarrell@schwartzlawfirm.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angela E. Outten Reeser, Rodnite, Outten & Zdravko, PA Suite A 3411 Palm Harbor Blvd Palm Harbor, FL 34683 727-787-5919 Fax: 727-787-6685 Email: aoutten@rrozlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher D. Gray Florin, Roebig, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683 727/786-5000 Fax: 727/772-9833 Email: fgo@FlorinRoebig.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Geldert Brown Brown & Doherty, PA Suite 120 450 Carillon Pkwy St Petersburg, FL 33716 727-299-0099 Fax: 727-299-0044 Email: jeff@brownanddoherty.com

2 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

Intervenor Plaintiff Veronica Ferek
Intervenor Plaintiff Melissa Scarborough

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wolfgang M. Florin Florin, Roebig, P.A. 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683 727/786-5000 Fax: 727-772-9833 Email: fgo@florinroebig.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angela E. Outten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher D. Gray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Geldert Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wolfgang M. Florin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angela E. Outten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher D. Gray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Geldert Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

V. Defendant Rio Bravo International, Inc.
Defendant Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc.

Wolfgang M. Florin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter W. Zinober Greenberg Traurig, P.A. Courthouse Plaza, Suite 100 625 Twiggs Street Tampa, FL 33602 813-318-5700 Fax: 813-318-5900 Email: zinoberp@gtlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott T. Silverman Greenberg Traurig, P.A. Courthouse Plaza, Ste. 100 625 E. Twiggs Street Tampa, FL 33602 813/318-5724 Fax: 813-318-5900 Email: silvermansc@gtlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erich Y. Schultz Law Office of Erich Y. Schultz 181 S. St. Reading, MA 01867-3934 617/733-5237 TERMINATED: 08/28/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott T. Silverman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

4 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

Defendant Applebee's International TERMINATED: 09/09/2002 doing business as Rio Bravo Cantina
Movant Sheri Calvo TERMINATED: 07/17/2003
Movant Veronica Ferek TERMINATED: 07/17/2003

Erich Y. Schultz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott T. Silverman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erich Y. Schultz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher D. Gray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angela E. Outten (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wolfgang M. Florin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher D. Gray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angela E. Outten (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2003

5 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

Third Party Plaintiff Rio Bravo International, Inc.
Third Party Plaintiff Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc.
Third Party Plaintiff Applebee's International doing business as Rio Bravo Cantina

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wolfgang M. Florin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott T. Silverman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erich Y. Schultz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott T. Silverman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erich Y. Schultz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott T. Silverman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

6 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

V. Third Party Defendant Robert Evans
Defendant Chevys, Inc.

Erich Y. Schultz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark G. Rodriguez Law Offices of Mark G. Rodriguez, PA Suite 201 701 S Howard Ave Tampa, FL 33606 813/227-9642 Fax: 813/354-4402 Email: attorney@markrodriguezlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John William Robinson, IV Fowler, White, Boggs & Banker, PA 501 E Kennedy Blvd - Ste 1700 PO Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438 813/228-7411 ext: 1118 Fax: 813/229-8313 Email: jrobinso@fowlerwhite.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Douglas Zwetsch Fowler, White, Boggs & Banker, PA 501 E Kennedy Blvd - Ste 1700 PO Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438 813/228-7411 ext: 1174 Fax: 813/229-8313 Email: kzwetsch@fowlerwhite.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott A. Fisher Fowler, White, Boggs & Banker, PA 501 E Kennedy Blvd - Ste 1700 PO Box 1438 Tampa, FL 33601-1438 813/228-7411 ext: 2060 Fax: 813/229-8313

7 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

Third Party Plaintiff Rio Bravo International, Inc.
Third Party Plaintiff Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc.
Third Party Plaintiff Applebee's International doing business as Rio Bravo Cantina

Email: sfisher@fowlerwhite.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott T. Silverman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erich Y. Schultz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott T. Silverman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erich Y. Schultz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott T. Silverman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erich Y. Schultz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2000

8 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

V. Third Party Defendant Robert Evans

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/11/1999 06/11/1999 06/11/1999 06/18/1999 07/19/1999 08/03/1999 08/06/1999 08/06/1999 08/06/1999 08/17/1999 08/30/1999 09/02/1999 09/13/1999 11/05/1999 11/05/1999

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT and demand for jury trial filed (bls) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: Mark A. Pizzo (bls) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
SUMMONSES issued for Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l. Consents issued. (bls) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
2 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - TRACK 2. (ctc) (jlh) (Entered: 06/21/1999)
3 MOTION by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough to intervene as plaintiffs ; proposed intervenor's complaint attached. (mrh) (Entered: 07/21/1999)
4 RESPONSE by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l to [3-1] motion to intervene as plaintiffs (wlb) (Entered: 08/05/1999)
5 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Applebee's Int'l 6/29/99 Answer due on 8/30/99 for Applebee's Int'l (wlb) (Entered: 08/09/1999)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc 6/29/99 Answer due on 8/30/99 for Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc (wlb) (Entered: 08/09/1999)
7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Innovative Restaurant. 6/29/99 Answer due on 8/30/99 for Innovative Restaurant. (wlb) (Entered: 08/09/1999)
8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of [2-1] track 2 notice by EEOC (notice of compliance with Local Rule 3.05) (wlb) (Entered: 08/18/1999)
9 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to Complaint by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (wlb) (Entered: 08/31/1999)
10 ORDER OF PROCEDURE. ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 09/03/1999)
11 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (wlb) (Entered: 09/14/1999)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [3-1] motion to intervene as plaintiffs ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 11/05/1999)
12 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Deadline for filing of motions 10/31/00 ; Discovery cutoff 8/31/00 ; Pretrial conference may be scheduled on 20 days notice on or after 2/12/01 ; Scheduled for Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ( signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlh)

9 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

11/05/1999 11/16/1999 11/22/1999 11/29/1999 12/10/1999
01/03/2000 03/21/2000 05/05/2000 05/08/2000
05/10/2000
05/10/2000
05/10/2000 05/11/2000 05/16/2000

(Entered: 11/05/1999)
Jury trial may be set on 20 days notice on or after 7/1/01 Scheduled for Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich (jlh) (Entered: 11/05/1999)
13 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to Complaint by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaurant., Applebee's Int'l Inc. (wlb) (Entered: 11/17/1999)
14 MOTION by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough with memorandum in support to limit deposition examination of plaintiff referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (wlb) (Entered: 11/23/1999)
15 MEMORANDUM by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l in opposition to [14-1] motion to limit deposition examination of plaintiff (wlb) (Entered: 11/30/1999)
16 ORDER granting [14-1] motion to limit deposition examination of plaintiff, to the extent that defendant shall be limited to a total of 8 hours per plaintiff for deposition examination. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (wlb) Modified on 12/21/1999 (Entered: 12/14/1999)
Correspondence from Michele Williams, Process Specialist to Erich Y. Schultz, Esquire. (wlb) (Entered: 01/04/2000)
17 NOTICE OF mediation with John Bolt, mediator: set mediation conference for 9:30 4/17/00 (map) (Entered: 03/22/2000)
18 EMERGENCY MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l for EEOC to cease and desist contact with former and present employees of defendants (wlb) (Entered: 05/05/2000)
19 ORDER to repond response to motion set to 3:00 5/10/00 for [18-1] motion for EEOC to cease and desist contact with former and present employees of defendants by defendantss ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
20 EMERGENCY MOTION by EEOC with memorandum in support to extend time of one day to respond to defendants' emergency motion for EEOC to cease and desist contact with former and present employees of defendants (wlb) Modified on 05/11/2000 (Entered: 05/11/2000)
21 ORDER granting [20-1] motion to extend time of one day to respond to defendants' emergency motion for EEOC to cease and desist contact with former and present employees of defendants ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 05/11/2000)
22 RESPONSE by EEOC to [18-1] motion for EEOC to cease and desist contact with former and present employees of defendants (wlb) (Entered: 05/11/2000)
23 SUPPLEMENT by EEOC to [22-1] motion response (exhibits filed under separate cover) (wlb) Modified on 05/11/2000 (Entered: 05/11/2000)
24 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support to extend time in which to file third-party claim , and to extend time to join party (wlb) (Entered: 05/17/2000)

10 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

05/19/2000
05/22/2000 05/22/2000 05/22/2000 05/26/2000 06/02/2000 06/02/2000 06/05/2000 06/05/2000 06/06/2000 06/12/2000 06/19/2000 06/19/2000

25 MOTION by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough with memorandum in support (emergency) to compel defendant to produce all documents which comprise its internal investigation of any employee's sexual harassment complaints referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (rm) Modified on 05/19/2000 (Entered: 05/19/2000)
26 ORDER denying [18-1] motion for EEOC to cease and desist contact with former and present employees of defendants ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 05/22/2000)
27 ORDER granting [24-1] motion to extend time in which to file third-party claim, granting [24-2] motion to extend time to join party ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 05/22/2000)
28 ORDER deferring [25-1] motion (emergency) to compel defendant to produce all documents which comprise its internal investigation of any employee's sexual harassment complaints and defendant is ordered to respond to the motion ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 05/22/2000)
29 UNOPPOSED MOTION by EEOC (unopposed) to correct scrivener's error in order [26-1] (src) Modified on 05/30/2000 (Entered: 05/30/2000)
30 MOTION by EEOC with memorandum in support to compel defendants to provide complete responses to first request for production of documents referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (jlh) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
31 SUPPLEMENT by EEOC to [30-1] motion to compel defendants to provide complete responses to first request for production of documents (jlh) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
32 MEMORANDUM by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l in opposition to [25-1] motion (emergency) to compel defendant to produce all documents which comprise its internal investigation of any employee's sexual harassment complaints (wlb) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
33 NOTICE of filing case law in support of defendants' memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs' emergency motion to compel by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (wlb) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
34 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support for leave to file third party complaint against Robert Evans (proposed third-party complaint attached) (wlb) (Entered: 06/07/2000)
35 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l for leave to take additional depositions (unopposed) referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (wlb) (Entered: 06/13/2000)
36 MEMORANDUM by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l in opposition to [30-1] motion to compel defendants to provide complete responses to first request for production of documents (wlb) (Entered: 06/20/2000)
37 NOTICE of filing documents in support of memorandum of law in opposition to motion to compel by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 06/20/2000)

11 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

06/23/2000 06/23/2000 07/07/2000 07/07/2000 07/10/2000 07/21/2000 07/21/2000
07/21/2000 07/21/2000
07/24/2000 07/24/2000 08/07/2000

38 RESPONSE by EEOC to [34-1] motion for leave to file third party complaint against Robert Evans (wlb) (Entered: 06/26/2000)
39 NOTICE of filing cases cited in plaintiff's response to defendants' motion for leave to file third-party complaint against Robert Evans by EEOC (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 06/26/2000)
40 MOTION by EEOC for leave to file amended complaint to add successor employer as a party defendant (amended complaint submitted as exhibit A) (eec) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
41 NOTICE of filing complete legible copies of the cases cited in EEOC's motion for leave to file amended complaint pursuant to this Court's order dated 9/2/99 by EEOC (rjc) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
42 ORDER granting [35-1] consent motion for leave to take additional depositions. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
43 CONSENTED MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough for leave to file amended answers and affirmative defenses (consented) (wlb) (Entered: 07/24/2000)
44 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough for leave to file reply brief to plaintiff EEOC's response to defendants' motion for leave to file third party complaint against Robert Evans (unopposed) (proposed brief attached as exhibit A) (wlb) (Entered: 07/24/2000)
45 ORDER denying without prejudice [30-1] motion to compel defendants to provide complete responses to first request for production of documents. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 07/24/2000)
46 ORDER granting [25-1] motion to compel defendant to produce all documents which comprise its internal investigation of any employee's sexual harassment complaints, granted only to the extent that Moore is directed to produce non-corporate documents responsive to the Intervenors' requests that are in his possession, custody or control that are not protected by the attorney-client privilege and are not work product. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 07/24/2000)
47 MEMORANDUM by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l in opposition to [40-1] motion for leave to file amended complaint to add successor employer as a party defendant (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
48 NOTICE of filing cases cited in support of memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff EEOC's motion for leave to add successor employer as a party defendant by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
49 MOTION by EEOC with memorandum in support for prior court approval to issue newspaper advertisement (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 08/08/2000)

12 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

08/07/2000 08/08/2000 08/21/2000 08/24/2000 08/25/2000 08/25/2000 08/25/2000
08/25/2000 08/25/2000 08/28/2000 08/28/2000 08/28/2000

50 NOTICE of filing cases cited in plaintiff's motion for prior court apkproval to issue newspaper advertisement by EEOC. (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
51 UNOPPOSED MOTION by EEOC for leave to file a reply to defendants' response to plaintiff EEOC'S motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add successor employer as a party-defendant (unopposed) (proposed reply attached) (wlb) (Entered: 08/09/2000)
52 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support to compel mental examination referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (wlb) (Entered: 08/22/2000)
53 NOTICE of substitution of counsel by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (wlb) (Entered: 08/25/2000)
54 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support to compel EEOC to produce documents or a privilege log complying with the court's order dated 7/20/00 referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (wlb) (Entered: 08/28/2000)
55 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support to compel answers to defendant's third set of interrogatories referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (wlb) (Entered: 08/28/2000)
56 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support to compel plaintiff Sheri Calvo's answers to defendants' second set of interrogatories , and to compel second request for production of documents referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (wlb) (Entered: 08/28/2000)
57 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support to compel production to reopen Kathryn Milcowitz's deposition referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (wlb) (Entered: 08/28/2000)
58 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support to compel complete damages disclosures referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 08/28/2000)
59 NOTICE of filing case citied in motion to compel plaintiff Sheri Calvo's answers to second set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (filed under separate cover) (wlb) Modified on 08/29/2000 (Entered: 08/29/2000)
60 NOTICE of filing cases cited in defendant's motion to compel production and to reopoen Kathryn Milcowitz's deposition by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
61 NOTICE of filing cases cited in defendant's motion to compel complete damages disclosures by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 08/29/2000)

13 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

08/28/2000 08/28/2000 08/29/2000 08/31/2000 09/06/2000 09/08/2000 09/08/2000 09/08/2000 09/12/2000 09/12/2000

62 NOTICE of filing cases cited in defendant's motion to compel answers to defendants' third set of interrogatories by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
63 NOTICE of filing cases cited in defendant's motion to compel plaintiff EEOC to produce documents or a privilege log complying with the court's order dated 7/20/00 by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 08/29/2000)
64 NOTICE of filing affidavit in support of defendant's motion to compel Rule 35 mental examination by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (wlb) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
65 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l to withdraw [52-1] motion to compel mental examination and to substitute revised motion to compel mental examination referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (src) (Entered: 09/01/2000)
66 UNOPPOSED MOTION with memorandum of law by EEOC to extend time of 10 days within which to file responses to defendants' motion to compel (unopposed) referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (wlb) (Entered: 09/07/2000)
67 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [65-2] motion to substitute revised motion to compel mental examination, [52-1] motion to compel mental examination (wlb) (Entered: 09/11/2000)
68 NOTICE of filing plaintiffs' table of authorities in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendant's motion to compel mental examination by EEOC (wlb) (Entered: 09/11/2000)
69 NOTICE of filing deposition excerpts in support of plaintiffs' response in opposition to defendant's motion to compel mental examination. by EEOC (wlb) (Entered: 09/11/2000)
70 UNOPPOSED MOTION by EEOC to extend time to respond to defendants' motions to compel (unopposed) referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (wlb) (Entered: 09/12/2000)
71 ORDER granting [66-1] consent motion to extend time of 10 days within which to file responses to defendants' motion to compel (unopposed), response to motion set to 9/29/00 for [58-1] motion to compel complete damages disclosures by defendantss, set to 9/29/00 for [57-1] motion to compel production to reopen Kathryn Milcowitz's deposition by defendantss, set to 9/29/00 for [56-1] motion to compel plaintiff Sheri Calvo's answers to defendants' second set of interrogatories by defendantss, set to 9/29/00 for [56-2] motion to compel second request for production of documents by defendantss, set to 9/29/00 for [55-1] motion to compel answers to defendant's third set of interrogatories by defendantss, set to 9/29/00 for [54-1] motion to compel EEOC to produce documents or a privilege log complying with the court's order dated 7/20/00 by defendantss, set to 9/29/00 for [52-1] motion to compel mental examination by defendantss ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 09/13/2000)

14 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

09/25/2000 09/25/2000 09/25/2000
09/25/2000 09/26/2000 09/26/2000 09/26/2000 09/26/2000 09/27/2000 09/27/2000 09/27/2000 09/27/2000 09/27/2000 09/27/2000 09/27/2000 09/27/2000

72 RESPONSE by EEOC to [56-1] motion to compel plaintiff Sheri Calvo's answers to defendants' second set of interrogatories, [56-2] motion to compel second request for production of documents (wlb) (Entered: 09/26/2000)
73 RESPONSE by EEOC to [57-1] motion to compel production to reopen Kathryn Milcowitz's deposition (wlb) (Entered: 09/26/2000)
74 NOTICE of filing cases cited in plaintiff's response to defendants' motion to compel plaintiff Sherri Calvo's answers to defendants' second set of interrogatories and second requests for production of documents. by EEOC (wlb) (Entered: 09/26/2000)
75 NOTICE of filing cases cited in plaintiff's response to defendants' motion to compel production and to reopen Kathryn Milcovitz's deposition by EEOC. (wlb) (Entered: 09/26/2000)
76 RESPONSE by EEOC to [54-1] motion to compel EEOC to produce documents or a privilege log complying with the court's order dated 7/20/00. (wlb) (Entered: 09/27/2000)
77 RESPONSE by EEOC to [55-1] motion to compel answers to defendant's third set of interrogatories (wlb) (Entered: 09/27/2000)
78 NOTICE of filing cases cited in plaintiffs response to defendants' motion to compel plaintiff to produce documents or a privilege log by EEOC. (wlb) (Entered: 09/27/2000)
79 NOTICE of filing cases cited in plaintiff's response to defendant's motion to compel answers to defendants' third set of interrogatories by EEOC. (wlb) (Entered: 09/27/2000)
80 NOTICE of filing deposition transcripts and page index in support of EEOC'S response to defendants' motion to compel answers to defendants' third set of interrogatories by EEOC. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
81 DEPOSITION of Summer Dave Blair by EEOC re: [77-1] motion response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
82 DEPOSITION of Sheri Lynn Calvo Boesch by EEOC re: [77-1] motion response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
83 DEPOSITION of Rene Brown by EEOC re: [77-1] motion response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
84 DEPOSITION of Nicole Pouillon-Buck by EEOC re: [77-1] motion response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
85 DEPOSITION of Leslie Cucinotta by EEOC re: [77-1] motion response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
86 DEPOSITION of Heather L. Eberhardt by EEOC re: [77-1] motion response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
87 DEPOSITION of Veronica Ferek by EEOC re: [77-1] motion response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)

15 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

09/27/2000 09/27/2000 09/27/2000 09/27/2000 09/27/2000 09/27/2000 09/27/2000
10/04/2000 10/13/2000 10/23/2000
10/27/2000
10/31/2000
11/03/2000 11/14/2000

88 DEPOSITION of Kathryn A. Milcowitz by EEOC re: [77-1] motion response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
89 DEPOSITION of Laura Marie Rush by EEOC re: [77-1] motion response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
90 DEPOSITION of Melissa Ann Scarborough by EEOC re: [77-1] motion response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
91 DEPOSITION of Lesley Alexandra Smith by EEOC re: [77-1] motion response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
92 DEPOSITION of Christina Lynn Thomas by EEOC re: [77-1] motion response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
93 DEPOSITION of Sharlee A. Workman by EEOC re: [77-1] motion response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
94 Page index reflecting deposition testimony of claimants responsive to defendants' third set of interrogatories in support of EEOC'S response to defendants' motion to compel answsers to defendants' thrid set of interrogatories by EEOC (wlb) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
95 CONSENTED MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l regarding the number of, and page limits for, their dispositive motions (wlb) (Entered: 10/06/2000)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [95-1] consent motion regarding the number of, and page limits for, their dispositive motions ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
96 JOINT MOTION by EEOC, Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l to extend time for filing dispositive motions until 11/14/00 , and to extend time to respond to defendant's dispositive motions until 12/15/00 (wlb) (Entered: 10/24/2000)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [96-1] joint motion to extend time for filing dispositive motions until 11/14/00, granting [96-2] joint motion to extend time to respond to defendant's dispositive motions until 12/15/00, reset dispositive motion filing deadline for 11/14/00 ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 10/30/2000)
97 ORDER denying [52-1] motion to compel mental examination granting [65-1] motion to withdraw [52-1] motion to compel mental examination granting [65-2] motion to substitute revised motion to compel mental examination. Defendants' revised motion to compel mental examination is denied. The clerk of the court is directed to purge document 52 from the record and return to defendants' counsel. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
98 ORDER granting nucn pro tunc [70-1] consent motion to extend time to respond to defendants' motions to compel. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (wlb) Modified on 11/06/2000 (Entered: 11/06/2000)
99 SECOND JOINT MOTION by EEOC, Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l to extend time to file responses to defendants' dispositive

16 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

11/17/2000
11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000

motions (second, joint) (wlb) (Entered: 11/15/2000)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [99-1] joint motion to extend time to file responses to defendants' dispositive motions reset dispositive motion filing deadline for 11/24/00 Plaintiffs' responses to defendants' dispositive motions is reset to 1/22/01. ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 11/20/2000)
100 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
101 NOTICE of filing deposition transcripts in support of motion for partial summary judgment by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
102 DEPOSITION of Philip Crenshaw by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l re: [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
103 DEPOSITION of Benn Irwin by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l re: [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
104 DEPOSITION of Sheri Lynn Calvo Roesch by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l re: [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
105 DEPOSITION of Sheri Lynn Calvo Boesch, Volume II by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l re: [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
106 DEPOSITION of Melissa Ann Scarborough by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l re: [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
107 DEPOSITION of Melissa Scarborough, Volume II by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l re: [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
108 DEPOSITION of Veronica Ferek by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l re: [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
109 DEPOSITION of Veronica Ferek, Volume II by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l re: [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)

17 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

11/24/2000 11/24/2000
11/24/2000
11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000

110 AFFIDAVIT of Brian Denney by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l Re: [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
111 NOTICE of filing index of cases filed in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment based on the claims of the Intervenors by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l. (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
112 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support for summary judgment based on the claims of Nicole Gracey, Sharlee Workman, Kathryn Milcowtz, Lesley Smith, and Christina Thomas (wlb) Modified on 09/20/2001 (Entered: 11/27/2000)
113 MOTION by Applebee's Int'l for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
114 MEMORANDUM by Applebee's Int'l in support of [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
115 AFFIDAVIT of Robert T. Steinkamp by Applebee's Int'l Re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
116 NOTICE of filing deposition transcripts in support of motion for summary judgment by Applebee's Int'l. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
117 DEPOSITION of Benn Irwin by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
118 DEPOSITION of Christopher Benjamin Hemmings by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
119 DEPOSITION of Christopher Benjamin Hemmings by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
120 DEPOSITION of Christopher Benjamin Hemmings by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
121 DEPOSITION of Christopher Benjamin Hemmings by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
122 DEPOSITION of Cote Turner by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
123 DEPOSITION of Benn Irwin by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
124 DEPOSITION of Christopher Benjamin Hemmings by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript

18 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000

filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
125 DEPOSITION of Christopher Benjamin Hemmings by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
126 DEPOSITION of John Nathaniel Moore by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
127 DEPOSITION of John Nathaniel Moore, Jr. by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
128 DEPOSITION of Cote Turner by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
129 DEPOSITION of Christopher Benjamin Hemmings by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
130 DEPOSITION of Christopher Benjamin Hemmings by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
131 DEPOSITION of Christopher Benjamin Hemmings by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
132 DEPOSITION of Christopher Benjamin Hemmings by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
133 DEPOSITION of Christopher Benjamin Hemmings by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
134 DEPOSITION of Christopher Benjamin Hemmings by Applebee's Int'l re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
135 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support for summary judgment as to the claims of Heather Eberhardt (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
136 NOTICE of filing deposition transcript in support of motion for summary judgment by Applebee's Int'l (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
137 DEPOSITION of Heather Eerhardt by Applebee's Int'l re: [135-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Heather Eberhardt Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
138 NOTICE of filing index of cases filed in support of motion for summary judgment by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)

19 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000

139 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
140 NOTICE of filing deposition transcripts in support of motion for summary judgment by Applebee's Int'l (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
141 DEPOSITION Excerpts of Robert Anthony Evans by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) Modified on 11/27/2000 (Entered: 11/27/2000)
142 DEPOSITION Excerpts of Christopher Benjamin Hemmings by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) Modified on 11/27/2000 (Entered: 11/27/2000)
143 DEPOSITION Excerpts of Brian Lyman by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) Modified on 11/27/2000 (Entered: 11/27/2000)
144 DEPOSITION Excerpts of Philip Crenshaw by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) Modified on 11/27/2000 (Entered: 11/27/2000)
145 DEPOSITION Excerpts of Cote Turner by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) Modified on 11/27/2000 (Entered: 11/27/2000)
146 DEPOSITION Excerpt of Cote Turner by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) Modified on 11/27/2000 (Entered: 11/27/2000)
147 DEPOSITION Excerpt of Cote Turner by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) Modified on 11/27/2000 (Entered: 11/27/2000)
148 DEPOSITION Excerpt of Cote Turner by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) Modified on 11/27/2000 (Entered: 11/27/2000)
149 DEPOSITION Excerpt of John Nathaniel Moore by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) Modified on 11/27/2000 (Entered: 11/27/2000)

20 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/24/2000

150 DEPOSITION Excerpt of Cote Turner by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) Modified on 11/27/2000 (Entered: 11/27/2000)
151 DEPOSITION Excerpt of Cote Turner by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) Modified on 11/27/2000 (Entered: 11/27/2000)
152 DEPOSITION Excerpts of Cote Turner by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) Modified on 11/27/2000 (Entered: 11/27/2000)
153 DEPOSITION Excerpts of Cote Turner by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
154 DEPOSITION Excerpts of Cote Turner by Applebee's Int'l re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
155 AFFIDAVIT of Robert T. Steinkamp by Applebee's Int'l Re: [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
156 NOTICE of filing index of cases filed in support of motion for summary judgment by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
157 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support for summary judgment as to the claims of Summer Blair (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
158 NOTICE of filing deposition transcript of Summer Blair in support of motion for summary judgment by Applebee's Int'l (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
159 DEPOSITION of Summer Daye Blair by Applebee's Int'l re: [157-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Summer Blair Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
160 NOTICE of filing index of cases filed in support of motion for summary judgment by Applebee's Int'l (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
161 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support for summary judgment as to the claims of Laura Rush (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
162 NOTICE of filing deposition transcript in support of motion for summary judgment by Applebee's Int'l (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)

21 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

11/24/2000 11/24/2000 11/27/2000 11/27/2000 11/27/2000
11/28/2000 11/28/2000 12/13/2000
12/13/2000
12/13/2000

163 DEPOSITION of Laura Marie Rush by Applebee's Int'l re: [161-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Laura Rush Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
164 NOTICE of filing index of cases filed in support of motion for summary judgment by Applebee's Int'l. (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
165 NOTICE of filing Index to case cited in motion for summary judgment based on the claims of Nicole Gracey, Sharlee Workman, Kathryn Milcowtz, Lesley Smith, and Christina Thomas by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (filed under separate cover) (wlb) Modified on 11/28/2000 (Entered: 11/28/2000)
166 NOTICE of filing index to cases cited in defendant's memorandum of law in support of its motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant by Applebee's Int'l (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 11/28/2000)
167 NOTICE of filing deposition excerpts in support of motion for summary judgment based on the claims of Nicole Gracy, Sharlee Workman, Kathryn Milcowitz, Lesley Smith, and Christina Thomas by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (filed under separate cover deposition excerpts by Nicole Pouillon-Buck, Sharlee A. Workman, Kathryn A. Milcowitz, Lesley Alexandra Smith, Christina Lynn Thomas, and Debbie Howell) (wlb) Modified on 11/28/2000 (Entered: 11/28/2000)
168 NOTICE of filing original affidavit of Robert T. Steinkamp by Applebee's Int'l in support of motion for summary judgment. (wlb) (Entered: 11/29/2000)
169 AFFIDAVIT of Robert T. Steinkamp by Applebee's Int'l Re: [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant. (wlb) (Entered: 11/29/2000)
170 ORDER denying [57-1] motion to compel production to reopen Kathryn Milcowitz's deposition. Should Ms. Milcowitz locate her journal, plaintiff is directed to supplement its response to defendants' request for the journal in accordance with Federal Rules of civil Procedure Rule 26(e). At that time, plaintiff may file a motion for protective order to limit disclosure of Ms. Milcowitzs' journal. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 12/14/2000)
171 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [54-1] motion to compel EEOC to produce documents or a privilege log complying with the court's order dated 7/20/00. The motion to compel plaintiff to produce documents is denied without prejudice. The motion to compel plaintiff to produce a privilege log complying with the court's order dated 7/21/00 is granted. The plaintiff is directed to revise its privilege log as set forth in this order. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 12/14/2000)
172 ORDER denying [55-1] motion to compel answers to defendant's third set of interrogatories denying [56-1] motion to compel plaintiff Sheri Calvo's answers to defendants' second set of interrogatories denying [56-2] motion to compel second request for production of documents ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 12/14/2000)

22 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

12/27/2000 12/27/2000 12/27/2000 12/28/2000 01/10/2001 01/19/2001 01/25/2001
01/25/2001

173 AMENDED MOTION amending [55-1] motion to compel answers to defendants' thrid set of interrogatories (amended) by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (wlb) (Entered: 12/28/2000)
174 AMENDED MOTION amending [56-1], [56-2] motion to compel plaintiff Sheri Calvo's answers to defendants' second set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (wlb) (Entered: 12/28/2000)
175 NOTICE of filing supplemental authority by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l re: [34-1] motion for leave to file third party complaint against Robert Evans. (wlb) (Entered: 12/28/2000)
176 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l to review [172-1] order denying motion to compel answers to interrogatories (rm) (Entered: 12/29/2000)
177 UNOPPOSED MOTION with memorandum of law by EEOC to extend time in which to respond to 7 motions for summary judgment (unopposed) , and to exceed the 20 page limit imposed by Local Rule 3.01(c) (unopposed) (wlb) Modified on 01/11/2001 (Entered: 01/11/2001)
178 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough (unopposed) to extend time to respond to motion for summary judgment (jlh) (Entered: 01/22/2001)
179 ORDER granting [177-1] consent motion to extend time in which to respond to 7 motions for summary judgment , granting [177-2] consent motion to exceed the 20 page limit imposed by Local Rule 3.01(c), response to motion set to 2/5/01 for [161-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Laura Rush by defendantss, set to 2/5/01 for [157-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Summer Blair by defendantss, set to 2/5/01 for [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief by defendantss, set to 2/5/01 for [135-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Heather Eberhardt by defendantss, set to 2/5/01 for [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant by defendant, set to 2/5/01 for [112-1] motion for summary judgment based on the claims of Nicole Gracey, Sharlee Workman, Kathryn Milcowtz, Lesley Smith, and Crhistina Thomas by defendantss, set to 2/5/01 for [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek by defendantss ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
180 ORDER granting [178-1] motion to extend time to respond to motion for summary judgment, response to motion set to 2/5/01 for [161-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Laura Rush by defendantss, set to 2/5/01 for [157-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Summer Blair by defendantss, set to 2/5/01 for [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief by defendantss, set to 2/5/01 for [135-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Heather Eberhardt by defendantss, set to 2/5/01 for [113-1]

23 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

02/05/2001
02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/05/2001
02/05/2001

motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant by defendant, set to 2/5/01 for [112-1] motion for summary judgment based on the claims of Nicole Gracey, Sharlee Workman, Kathryn Milcowtz, Lesley Smith, and Crhistina Thomas by defendantss, set to 2/5/01 for [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek by defendantss ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
183 NOTICE of filing cases cited in support of response in opposition to defendant motion for summary judgment based on the claims of Nicole Gracey, Kathryn Milcovitz, Sharlee Workman, Lesley Smith, Christina Thomas, Summer Blair, Laura Rush and Heather Eberhardt by EEOC (filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
184 RESPONSE with memorandum of law by EEOC in opposition to [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant. Filed under separate cover. (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
185 MEMORANDUM by EEOC in support of [184-1] opposition response. (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
186 NOTICE of filing cases cited in plaintiff's response in opposition to defendant, Applebee's motion for summary judgment that is not a proper party by EEOC. (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
187 RESPONSE by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough in opposition to [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant. (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
188 NOTICE of filing cases cited in plaintiff's response in opposition to Applebee's motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant by EEOC. Filed under separate cover. (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
189 RESPONSE with memorandum of law by EEOC in opposition to [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek. (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
190 RESPONSE by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough in opposition to [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek. Filed under separate cover. (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
191 NOTICE of filing citatio of authority in support of plaintiff's response in opposition to defendants' motion for partial summary judgment based as to the claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough. Filed under separate cover. (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
192 RESPONSE by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough in opposition to [112-1] motion for summary judgment based on the claims of Nicole Gracey, Sharlee Workman, Kathryn Milcowtz, Lesley Smith, and Crhistina Thomas. Filed under separate cover. (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)

24 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

02/05/2001
02/05/2001
02/05/2001 02/05/2001
02/05/2001
02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/05/2001

193 NOTICE of filing citation of authority in support of intervenors' response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the claims of Gracey, Workman, Milcowitz, Smith, and Thomas by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough. Filed under separate cover. (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
194 NOTICE of filing depositions transcripts and excerpts from depositions in support of plaintiff's response in opposition to defendants' motions for summary judgment based on the claims of Gracy, Milcovitz, Workman, Smith, Thomas, blair, Rush and Eberhardt by EEOC. Filed under separate cover. Attached to this notice are the excerpts. (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
195 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief. (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
196 NOTICE of filing cases cited in plaintiff's response in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs A and B of the complaint by EEOC. Filed under separate cover. (1-Black folder) (wlb) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
181 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [161-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Laura Rush; [157-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Summer Blair; [135-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Heather Eberhardt; [112-1] motion for summary judgment based on the claims of Nicole Gracey, Sharlee Workman, Kathryn Milcowtz, Lesley Smith, and Christina Thomas (mrh) Modified on 09/20/2001 (Entered: 09/19/2001)
182 MEMORANDUM by EEOC in support of [181-1] opposition response (mrh) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
197 DEPOSITION of Lesley Alexandra Smith by EEOC re: [181-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (mrh) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
198 DEPOSITION of Kathryn A. Milcowitz by EEOC re: [181-1] opposition response; Transcript filed separately. (mrh) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
199 DEPOSITION of Sheri Lynn Calvo Boesch by EEOC re: [181-1] opposition response; Transcript filed separately. (mrh) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
200 DEPOSITION of Veronica Ferek by EEOC re: [181-1] opposition response; Transcript filed separately. (mrh) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
201 DEPOSITION of Nicole Pouillon-Buck by EEOC re: [181-1] opposition response; Transcript filed separately. (mrh) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
202 DEPOSITION of Leslie Cucinotta by EEOC re: [182-1] support memorandum; Transcript filed separately. (mrh) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
203 DEPOSITION of Melissa Ann Scarborough by EEOC re: [181-1] opposition response; Transcript filed separately. (mrh) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
204 DEPOSITION of Sharlee A. Workman by EEOC re: [181-1] opposition response; Transcript filed separately. (mrh) (Entered: 09/19/2001)

25 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

02/05/2001 02/05/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001
02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/07/2001
02/16/2001 02/21/2001 03/23/2001 03/30/2001 04/06/2001

205 DEPOSITION of Rene Brown by EEOC re: [181-1] opposition response; Transcript filed separately. (mrh) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
206 DEPOSITION of Christina Lynn Thomas by EEOC re: [181-1] opposition response; Transcript filed separately. (mrh) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
207 MEMORANDUM by EEOC in support of [189-1] opposition response. (wlb) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
208 NOTICE of filing deposition transcripts in support of plaintiff's response in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the claims of plaintiff-Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek by EEOC (wlb) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
209 DEPOSITION of Sheri Lynn Calvo Boesch, Volume II, taken 6/9/00 by EEOC re: [189-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
210 DEPOSITION of Sheri Lynn Calvo Boesch, taken 1/18/00 by EEOC re: [189-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
211 DEPOSITION of Melissa Ann Scarborough by EEOC re: [189-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
212 DEPOSITION of Veronica Ferek by EEOC re: [189-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
213 NOTICE of filing case cites in support of plaintiff's response to defendants' motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek by EEOC. (Filed under separate cover) (wlb) (Entered: 02/08/2001)
214 RESPONSE by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough to [58-1] motion to compel complete damages disclosures. (wlb) (Entered: 02/20/2001)
215 ORDER granting [58-1] motion to compel complete damages disclosures within 30 days from the date of this order. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (rjc) (Entered: 02/22/2001)
216 NOTICE OF HEARING: set status conference for 10:30 4/4/01 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 03/26/2001)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [29-1] consent motion to correct scrivener's error in order [26-1]. ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 03/30/2001)
217 ORDER granting [173-1] amended motion to compel answers to defendants' thrid set of interrogatories. The plaintiff is to provide the defendants with answers to interrogatories one, two, and three within 30 days from the date of this order. Denying [174-1] amended motion to compel plaintiff Sheri Calvo's answers to defendants' second set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 04/10/2001)

26 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

04/09/2001
06/04/2001 06/15/2001
06/18/2001 06/21/2001 06/21/2001 07/11/2001
07/27/2001 08/01/2001 08/03/2001 08/24/2001 09/10/2001

218 MOTION HEARING held on 4/4/01 re: [174-1] amended motion to compel plaintiff Sheri Calvo's answers to defendants' second set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents, [173-1] amended motion to compel answers to defendants' thrid set of interrogatories (amended) before Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (wlb) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
219 RENEWED MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l with memorandum in support to compel mental examination (renewed) referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (jlh) Modified on 06/21/2001 (Entered: 06/05/2001)
220 NOTICE of filing supplemental authority by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l re: [161-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Laura Rush, [157-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Summer Blair, [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief, [135-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Heather Eberhardt, [113-1] motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant, [112-1] motion for summary judgment based on the claims of Nicole Gracey, Sharlee Workman, Kathryn Milcowtz, Lesley Smith, and Crhistina Thomas (wlb) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
221 CORRECTED NOTICE of filing supplemental authority in support of defendants' summary judgment motions by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l re: (wlb) (Entered: 06/19/2001)
222 RESPONSE by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough in opposition to [219-1] motion to compel mental examination (renewed) (wlb) (Entered: 06/22/2001)
223 RESPONSE by EEOC to [219-1] motion to compel mental examination (renewed) (wlb) (Entered: 06/22/2001)
224 ORDER granting [219-1] motion to compel mental examination. The plaintiffs are ordered to undergo mental evaluations by defendants' experts, Randy K.Otto, Ph.D. and Barbara A. Stein, M.D. at dates and times which are mutually convenient to all parties. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
225 MOTION by EEOC for reconsideration of [224-1] order referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (wlb) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
226 NOTICE of filing case cites by EEOC (jlh) (Entered: 08/01/2001)
227 ORDER denying [225-1] motion for reconsideration of [224-1] order. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 08/06/2001)
228 OBJECTION by EEOC to [224-1] Magistrate Pizzo's order. (wlb) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
229 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (unopposed) to extend time to respond to EEOC's objection to Magistrate Judge's orders compelling mental examinations referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (rjc) (Entered: 09/11/2001)

27 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

09/17/2001 09/18/2001 09/24/2001 12/06/2001 12/17/2001 12/26/2001 01/08/2002 02/08/2002 02/26/2002
03/18/2002 03/18/2002
03/18/2002
03/18/2002 03/18/2002

230 MEMORANDUM by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l in opposition to [228-1] objection to Magistrate Judge's orders compelling mental examinations (rjc) (Entered: 09/18/2001)
231 ORDER granting [229-1] motion (unopposed) to extend time to respond to EEOC's objection to Magistrate Judge's orders compelling mental examinations ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
232 MOTION by EEOC to set status conference (rjc) (Entered: 09/25/2001)
233 NOTICE of filing supplemental authority by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l re: [230-1] opposition memorandum (wlb) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
234 NOTICE of filing recently obtained evidence in support of its response to defendant Applebee's International, Inc.'s pending motion for summary judgment that it is not a proper defendant by EEOC. (wlb) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
235 RESPONSE by EEOC to [233-1] notice of supplemental authority, re: opposition to objections to Magistrate Judge's orders compelling mental examination. (eec) (Entered: 12/27/2001)
236 RESPONSE by Applebee's Int'l to [234-1] notice (jlg) (Entered: 01/09/2002)
237 RESPONSE by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l in opposition to [235-1] response (mss) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
238 ORDER directing answers to standard interrogatories. Response to standard interrogatories due 3/16/02. Preliminary pretrial conference set for 2:00 4/5/02 Scheduled for Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
239 ORDER that plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's orders compelling mental examinations are overruled. ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
240 ORDER granting [44-1] consent motion for leave to file reply brief to plaintiff EEOC's response to defendants' motion for leave to file third party complaint against Robert Evans; granting [34-1] motion for leave to file third party complaint against Robert Evans ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
241 ORDER granting [44-1] consent motion for leave to file reply brief to plaintiff EEOC's response to defendants' motion for leave to file third party complaint against Robert Evans; granting [40-1] motion for leave to file amended complaint to add successor employer as a party defendant ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
242 ORDER granting [43-1] consent motion for leave to file amended answers and affirmative defenses ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
243 ORDER granting [49-1] motion for prior court approval to issue newspaper advertisement ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/19/2002)

28 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

03/18/2002 03/18/2002 03/18/2002 03/18/2002 03/18/2002 03/21/2002 03/21/2002 03/22/2002
03/22/2002 03/22/2002 03/28/2002
04/04/2002 04/05/2002

244 RESPONSE to standard interrogatories filed by EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
245 RESPONSE to standard interrogatories filed by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Sheri Calvo (jlg) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
246 THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaurant, Applebee's Int'l against Robert Evans (jlg) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
247 AMENDED COMPLAINT by EEOC amending [1-1] complaint (Answer due 4/4/02 for Applebee's Int'l, for Innovative Restaur., for Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc ) adding Chevys, Inc.; jury demand (jlg) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
248 REPLY by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l to response to [44-1] consent motion for leave to file reply brief to plaintiff EEOC's response to defendants' motion for leave to file third party complaint against Robert Evans (jlg) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
249 ORDER denying [100-1] motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of Intervenors Calvo, Scarborough and Ferek ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
250 ORDER denying [232-1] motion to set status conference ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
251 NOTICE of filing supplemental authority by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l re: [135-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Heather Eberhardt, [112-1] motion for summary judgment based on the claims of Nicole Gracey, Sharlee Workman, Kathryn Milcowtz, Lesley Smith, and Christina Thomas (jlg) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
252 ORDER denying as moot [176-1] motion to review [172-1] order denying motion to compel answers to interrogatories ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
253 RESPONSE to standard interrogatories filed by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (jlg) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
254 ORDER deferring [112-1] motion for summary judgment based on the claims of Nicole Gracey, Sharlee Workman, Kathryn Milcowtz, Lesley Smith, and Christina Thomas; deferring [135-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Heather Eberhardt; deferring [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief; deferring [157-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Summer Blair; deferring [161-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Laura Rush ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/28/2002)
255 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Chevys, Inc. by Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, John William Robinson IV, Scott A. Fisher (jlg) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
256 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 4/5/02 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich Court Reporter: Dennis Miracle (jlg) (Entered: 04/05/2002)

29 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

04/08/2002
04/09/2002 04/09/2002 04/16/2002 04/16/2002 04/16/2002 04/17/2002 04/22/2002 04/23/2002 04/29/2002
05/15/2002
05/29/2002 06/04/2002
06/07/2002 06/07/2002

257 ORDER staying the order approving the advertisement for similarly situated employees and directing defendants to provide payroll information to plaintiffs within 30 days. (Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
258 THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l against Robert Evans (jlg) (Entered: 04/10/2002)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for Robert Evans. Consent(s) issued. (jlg) (Entered: 04/10/2002)
259 RESPONSE by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough in opposition to [221-1] notice of supplemental authority (jlg) (Entered: 04/17/2002)
260 AMENDED COMPLAINT by EEOC amending [247-1] amended complaint (Answer due 5/3/02 for Chevys, Inc., for Applebee's Int'l, for Innovative Restaur., for Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc ); jury demand (jlg) (Entered: 04/17/2002)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for Chevys, Inc. Consent(s) issued. (jlg) (Entered: 04/17/2002)
261 NOTICE of filing supplemental authority by EEOC re: [195-1] opposition response, [189-1] opposition response, [184-1] opposition response, [181-1] opposition response (jlg) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
262 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Chevys, Inc. to extend time until 5/30/02 to answer or otherwise plead to amended complaint (jlg) (Entered: 04/23/2002)
263 ANSWER and affirmative defenses by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l to [260-1] amended complaint (jlg) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
264 ORDER granting [262-1] consent motion to extend time until 5/30/02 to answer or otherwise plead to amended complaint, reset answer due for 5/30/02 for Chevys, Inc. ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
265 OBJECTION to defendants' offer of compliance with 4/8/02 court order and MOTION (request) by EEOC for lift of stay of 3/18/02 court order granting motion for court approval to issue newspaper advertisement (jlg) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
266 SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION by Chevys, Inc. (unopposed) to extend time until 6/7/02 to answer or otherwise plead to amended complaint (jlg) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
267 RESPONSE by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l to [265-1] objection and request for lift of stay of 3/18/02 court order granting motion for court approval to issue newspaper advertisement (jlg) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
268 MOTION by Chevys, Inc. with memorandum in support to dismiss amended complaint for failure to state a claim of successor employer liability (jlg) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
269 MOTION by Chevys, Inc. with memorandum in support for reconsideration of [241-1] order granting EEOC leave to file amended complaint (jlg) (Entered:

30 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

06/10/2002 06/13/2002
06/24/2002 06/24/2002 06/25/2002 06/25/2002 07/15/2002
07/15/2002
07/19/2002 07/22/2002 08/07/2002 08/09/2002 08/21/2002 08/23/2002 08/30/2002 09/09/2002
09/09/2002

06/07/2002)
270 NOTICE of to the Court regarding EEOC's request to lift stay of order for proposed newspaper advertisement by Chevys, Inc. (jlg) (Entered: 06/11/2002)
271 JOINDER in [269-1] motion for reconsideration of [241-1] order granting EEOC leave to file amended complaint by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (jlg) (Entered: 06/13/2002)
272 RESPONSE by EEOC to [268-1] motion to dismiss amended complaint for failure to state a claim of successor employer liability (jlg) (Entered: 06/25/2002)
273 RESPONSE by EEOC to [269-1] motion for reconsideration of [241-1] order granting EEOC leave to file amended complaint (jlg) (Entered: 06/25/2002)
274 NOTICE of filing case law re: response in opposition to motion for reconsideration by EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 06/25/2002)
275 NOTICE of filing case law re: response in opposition to motion to dismiss amended complaint by EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 06/25/2002)
276 ORDER denying [265-1] motion for lift of stay of 3/18/02 court order granting motion for court approval to issue newspaper advertisement, set status conference for 2:00 8/9/02 scheduled for Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot [266-1] consent motion to extend time until 6/7/02 to answer or otherwise plead to amended complaint ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
277 CERTIFICATE (notice) OF COMPLIANCE by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l Re: [276-1] order (jlg) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
278 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to [258-1] third-party complaint by Robert Evans (jlg) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
279 TRANSCRIPT of status conference held on 4/5/02 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Transcript filed separately. (jlg) (Entered: 08/07/2002)
280 STATUS CONFERENCE held on 8/9/02 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich Court Reporter: Dennis Miracle (jlg) (Entered: 08/12/2002)
281 NOTICE to court regarding trial schedule by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l (jlg) (Entered: 08/22/2002)
282 AGREED MOTION with memorandum of law by Chevys, Inc. (agreed) to extend time to brief severance issue until 8/30/02 (jlg) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
283 JOINT UNOPPOSED MOTION by EEOC, Chevys, Inc. (joint unopposed) to sever successor liability claim (jlg) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
284 ORDER granting [282-1] consent motion to extend time to brief severance issue until 8/30/02 ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [283-1] joint motion to sever successor liability claim ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered:

31 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

09/09/2002
09/12/2002
09/20/2002 09/23/2002 09/23/2002 10/04/2002 10/08/2002 10/11/2002 10/11/2002 10/11/2002 10/16/2002 10/17/2002 10/17/2002 10/21/2002

09/10/2002)
285 ORDER granting [113-1] motion for summary judgment that Applebee's International is not a proper defendant. Applebee's International is dismissed as a defendant in this case. ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
286 ORDER denying [269-1] motion for reconsideration of [241-1] order granting EEOC leave to file amended complaint; granting [268-1] motion to dismiss amended complaint for failure to state a claim of successor employer liability, set amended complaint deadline at 9/30/02 for Melissa Scarborough, for Veronica Ferek, for Sheri Calvo, for EEOC ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
287 MOTION by Robert Evans with memorandum in support for judgment on the pleadings (jlg) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
288 NOTICE of filing amended complaint by EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
289 AMENDED COMPLAINT by EEOC amending [1-1] complaint (Answer due 10/8/02 for Chevys, Inc., for Applebee's Int'l, for Innovative Restaur., for Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc ); jury demand (jlg) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
290 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. to extend time up through 10/11/02 to respond to Rob Evans' motion for judgment on the pleadings (wlb) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
291 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Chevys, Inc. (unopposed) to extend time to answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint until 10/15/02 (jlg) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [290-1] motion to extend time up through 10/11/02 to respond to Rob Evans' motion for judgment on the pleadings ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
292 RESPONSE by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. in opposition to [287-1] motion for judgment on the pleadings (jlg) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
293 ANSWER and affirmative defenses by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Applebee's Int'l to [289-1] second amended complaint (jlg) (Entered: 10/15/2002)
294 SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION by Chevys, Inc. (second unopposed) to extend time to answer or otherwise respond to second amended complaint until 10/17/02 (jlg) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
295 MOTION by Chevys, Inc. with memorandum in support to dismiss 2nd amended complaint (jlg) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
296 ORDER granting [291-1] consent motion to extend time to answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint until 10/11/02 ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
297 MOTION by EEOC for reconsideration of [285-1] order dismissing Applebee's International, Inc. as a defendant in this action (jlg) (Entered: 10/21/2002)

32 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

10/21/2002 10/22/2002 10/22/2002 11/04/2002 11/07/2002 11/08/2002 11/12/2002
11/15/2002 11/19/2002
11/22/2002
11/27/2002 12/06/2002 12/09/2002
12/09/2002

ENDORSED ORDER granting [294-1] second unopposed motion to extend time to answer or otherwise respond to second amended complaint until 10/17/02 ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
298 NOTICE of partial mootness regarding motion for summary judgment by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
299 NOTICE OF JOINDER in [295-1] motion to dismiss 2nd amended complaint by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
300 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [295-1] motion to dismiss 2nd amended complaint (jlg) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
301 CONSENTED MOTION by Applebee's Int'l (consented) to extend time to respond to motion for reconsideration until 11/14/02 (jlg) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
302 RESPONSE by EEOC to [298-1] notice of partial mootness regarding motion for summary judgement (jlg) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
303 ORDER granting [301-1] consent motion to extend time to respond to motion for reconsideration until 11/14/02, response to motion set to 11/14/02 for [297-1] motion for reconsideration of [285-1] order dismissing Applebee's International, Inc. as a defendant in this by plaintiff ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
304 RESPONSE by Applebee's Int'l in opposition to [297-1] motion for reconsideration of [285-1] order dismissing Applebee's International, Inc. as a defendant in this action (jlg) (Entered: 11/18/2002)
305 MOTION by EEOC with memorandum in support to compel defendants to supplement their response to plaintiff's 1st request for production seeking financial worth discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (jlg) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
306 MOTION by Applebee's Int'l to strike [289-1] amended complaint or, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings to remove Applebee's as a defendant from the second amended complaint , and for attorney fees and to costs (jlg) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
307 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Chevys, Inc. (unopposed) for leave to file reply memorandum to EEOC's response in opposition to motion to dismiss 2nd amended complaint (proposed pleading attached) (jlg) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
308 CONSENTED MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (consented) to extend time to respond to motion to compel until 12/13/02 referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (jlg) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
309 RESPONSE by EEOC to [306-1] motion to strike [289-1] amended complaint, [306-2] motion for judgment on the pleadings to remove Applebee's as a defendant from the second amended complaint, [306-3] motion for attorney fees, [306-4] motion to costs (jlg) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [307-1] consent motion for leave to file reply memorandum to EEOC's response in opposition to motion to dismiss 2nd amended complaint ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg)

33 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

12/09/2002 12/12/2002
12/16/2002 12/19/2002 01/09/2003 01/27/2003 02/10/2003 02/12/2003
03/04/2003 03/18/2003 03/19/2003 03/19/2003

(Entered: 12/10/2002)
310 REPLY by Chevys, Inc. to response to [295-1] motion to dismiss 2nd amended complaint (jlg) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
311 ORDER granting [308-1] consent motion to extend time to respond to motion to compel until 12/13/02, response to motion set to 12/13/02 for [305-1] motion to compel defendants to supplement their response to plaintiff's 1st request for production seeking financial worth discovery by plaintiff ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
312 RESPONSE by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. in opposition to [305-1] motion to compel defendants to supplement their response to plaintiff's 1st request for production seeking financial worth discovery (jlg) (Entered: 12/17/2002)
313 NOTICE of filing table of authorities and supporting case law for reply memorandum to response in opposition to motion to dismiss 2nd amended complaint by Chevys, Inc. (jlg) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
314 ORDER denying [305-1] motion to compel defendants to supplement their response to plaintiff's 1st request for production seeking financial worth discovery ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
315 OBJECTION by EEOC to [314-1] order denying motion to compel (jlg) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
316 RESPONSE by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. to [315-1] objections to order denying motion to compel supplementation regarding financial worth discovery (jlg) (Entered: 02/11/2003)
317 ORDER limiting time for completion of discovery; scheduling pre-trial conference and trial. Discovery is already cut off. Set pretrial conference for 9:30 3/27/03 scheduled for Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo . Jury trial to be determined. ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 02/12/2003)
318 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. to compel production of documents , to compel updated damages disclosures , to compel depositions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (jlg) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
319 CONSENTED MOTION by EEOC (consented) to extend time to respond to motion to compel until 4/8/03 referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (jlg) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
320 ORDER denying [51-1] consent motion for leave to file a reply to defendants' response to plaintiff EEOC'S motion leave to file an amended complaint to add successor as a party-defendant (Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/20/2003)
321 ORDER denying [297-1] motion for reconsideration of [285-1] order dismissing Applebee's International, Inc. as a defendant in this action, denying [306-1] motion to strike [289-1] amended complaint, denying [306-2] motion for judgment on the pleadings to remove Applebee's as a defendant from the second

34 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

03/19/2003 03/24/2003 03/26/2003
03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/28/2003
03/28/2003 03/28/2003 04/04/2003 04/04/2003
04/11/2003
04/14/2003

amended complaint, denying [306-3] motion for attorney fees, denying [306-4] motion to costs (Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/20/2003)
322 ORDER denying [287-1] motion for judgment on the pleadings ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/20/2003)
323 PRETRIAL STIPULATION (jlg) (Entered: 03/25/2003)
324 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. for leave to take depositions de bene esse of Tracy Losey, James Horne, and Tim Jennings referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (jlg) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
325 TRIAL BRIEF by EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
326 PROPOSED voir dire questions by EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
327 PROPOSED jury instructions by EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
327 PROPOSED verdict form filed by EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
328 PROPOSED verdict form with special interrogatories to jury filed by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
329 PROPOSED jury instructions by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
330 TRIAL BRIEF by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
331 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 3/27/03 before Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. Tape: 32/169 - end & 33/0-300 (jlg) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
332 PRETRIAL ORDER filed. Plaintiffs shall respond to the motion to compel on or before 4/4/03. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
333 PROPOSED verdict form filed by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough (jlg) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
333 PROPOSED jury instructions by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough (jlg) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
334 NOTICE of regarding withdrawal of claims for economic damages by EEOC, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough (jlg) (Entered: 04/04/2003)
335 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [318-1] motion to compel production of documents, [318-2] motion to compel updated damages disclosures, [318-3] motion to compel depositions (jlg) (Entered: 04/04/2003)
336 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. with memorandum in support for leave to file motion for reconsideration of court order denying motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of intervenors and for leave to file dispositive motion as to claims of the EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
337 RESPONSE by EEOC to [324-1] motion for leave to take depositions de bene esse of Tracy Losey, James Horne, and Tim Jennings (jlg) (Entered: 04/14/2003)

35 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

04/14/2003 04/14/2003 04/15/2003
04/28/2003
04/30/2003
04/30/2003 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 05/02/2003 05/05/2003
05/06/2003
05/06/2003 05/07/2003

338 NOTICE to court regarding motion for summary judgment as to EEOC's prayer for injunctive relief by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
339 EXHIBIT LIST by defendant Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, defendant Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
340 ORDER denying as moot [318-1] motion to compel production of documents, denying as moot [318-2] motion to compel updated damages disclosures, denying [318-3] motion to compel depositions Plaintiffs' consented motion for extension of time is moot. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 04/15/2003)
341 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [336-1] motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration of court order denying motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of intervenors, [336-2] motion for leave to file dispositive motion as to claims of the EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
342 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. for leave to file reply to response to motion to take depositions de bene esse of Tracy Losey, James Horne and Tim Jennings referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (proposed reply is unsigned) (jlg) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
343 AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST by defendant Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, defendant Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
344 ORDER denying [324-1] motion for leave to take depositions de bene esse of Tracy Losey, James Horne, and Tim Jennings ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 05/01/2003)
345 RESPONSE by EEOC to [338-1] notice to court regarding motion for summary judgment as to EEOC's prayer for injunctive relief (jlg) (Entered: 05/01/2003)
346 NOTICE of supplemental factual admissions supporting motion to dismiss 2nd amended complaint by Chevys, Inc. (jlg) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
ENDORSED ORDER denying [342-1] motion for leave to file reply to response to motion to take depositions de bene esse of Tracy Losey, James Horne and Tim Jennings ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 05/06/2003)
347 ORDER denying [336-1] motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration of court order denying motion for partial summary judgment as to claims of intervenors, denying [336-2] motion for leave to file dispositive motion as to claims of the EEOC ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 05/06/2003)
348 NOTICE to the court regarding mootness of motion by EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 05/06/2003)
349 ORDER denying [139-1] motion for summary judgment as to injunctive relief sought in paragraphs "A" and "B" of the complaints prayer for relief ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 05/07/2003)

36 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

05/12/2003 05/12/2003 05/12/2003
05/14/2003
05/14/2003
05/15/2003 05/22/2003 05/22/2003 05/22/2003 05/22/2003 05/22/2003 05/23/2003 05/23/2003 05/23/2003 05/23/2003
05/23/2003

350 NOTICE of conflict by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 05/12/2003)
351 CONSENTED MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (consented) for protection from trial for the month of July, 2003 (jlg) (Entered: 05/12/2003)
352 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [112-1] motion for summary judgment based on the claims of Nicole Gracey, Sharlee Workman, Kathryn Milcowtz, Lesley Smith, and Christina Thomas; granted as to the claims of Milcowitz and Thomas and otherwise denied as moot. Denying as moot [135-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Heather Eberhardt ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
353 TRIAL CALENDAR for trial term 6/2/03 scheduled for Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Jury trial deadline 10:00 6/2/03 Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
354 ORDER granting [157-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Summer Blair and granting [161-1] motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Laura Rush ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
355 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. for protection from trial for the days of 6/9/03 & 6/10/03 (jlg) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
356 MOTION by Robert Evans to permit cellular phone in courthouse for trial (jlg) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
357 MOTION by Robert Evans with memorandum in support in limine as to alleged racial slur (jlg) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
358 MOTION by Robert Evans with memorandum in support in limine as to sexual harassment policy (jlg) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
359 PROPOSED jury instructions by Robert Evans (jlg) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
360 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. in limine to exclude exhibits (jlg) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
361 Deposition designations of Robert Evans and John Moore by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough (jlg) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
362 NOTICE of attorney appearance for EEOC by Carla J. Von Greiff, Kenneth Lawrence Gillespie (jlg) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
363 Deposition designations by EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
364 MOTION by EEOC in limine to exclude all evidence of any claimants or witnesses relationships with co-workers that occurred outside the workplace (jlg) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
365 JOINT MOTION by EEOC, Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur., Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough, Chevys, Inc., Robert Evans to extend time to file responses to motions in limine (jlg) (Entered: 05/27/2003)

37 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

05/23/2003
05/27/2003 05/27/2003
05/27/2003 05/27/2003 05/27/2003 05/27/2003 05/27/2003 05/27/2003 05/28/2003
05/28/2003 05/28/2003 05/28/2003
05/28/2003
05/28/2003 05/29/2003 05/29/2003 05/29/2003 05/29/2003

366 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. in limine for exclusion of coworker anecdotal testimony and for bifurcation of trial (jlg) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
367 ADDITIONAL deposition designations by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
368 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION [355-1] (supplemental) for protection from trial until the week of 6/16/03 by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
369 PROPOSED voir dire questions by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
370 AMENDED PROPOSED jury instructions by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
371 AMENDED PROPOSED verdict form with special interrogatories filed by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
372 AMENDED PROPOSED jury instructions and verdict form by EEOC (jlg) Modified on 05/28/2003 (Entered: 05/28/2003)
373 PROPOSED voir dire questions by EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
374 AMENDED PROPOSED special verdict form filed by EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
375 RESPONSE by EEOC to [368-1] supplemental motion for protection from trial until the week of 6/16/03 and [355-1] motion for protection from trial for the days of 6/9/03 & 6/10/03 (jlg) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
376 OBJECTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. to [363-1] EEOC's deposition designation re: Laura Rush (jlg) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
377 CROSS-DESIGNATIONS for Laura Rush by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
378 CONSENTED MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (consented) to extend time to file objections and cross-designations to intervenor plaintiffs' deposition designations (jlg) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
379 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [368-1] supplemental motion for protection from trial until the week of 6/16/03 and [355-1] motion for protection from trial for the days of 6/9/03 & 6/10/03 (jlg) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
380 CROSS DESIGNATIONS by EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
381 PROPOSED voir dire questions by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough (jlg) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
SEALED DOCUMENT. S- 1 (jlg) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
SEALED DOCUMENT. S- 2 (jlg) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
382 OBJECTIONS and designations to plaintiffs' offer of Rob Evans' deposition testimony by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. to (jlg) (Entered:

38 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

05/29/2003 05/29/2003 05/30/2003
05/30/2003 05/30/2003 05/30/2003
05/30/2003 05/30/2003 05/30/2003
05/30/2003 05/30/2003
05/30/2003
05/30/2003 05/30/2003 06/02/2003
06/02/2003

05/30/2003)
383 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. for permission to use electronic courtroom technology (jlg) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
384 MOTION by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough to permit cellular phones in courthouse for trial (jlg) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
385 RESPONSE by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. in opposition to [364-1] motion in limine to exclude all evidence of any claimants or witnesses relationships with co-workers that occurred outside the workplace (jlg) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
386 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [358-1] motion in limine as to sexual harassment policy (jlg) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
387 MOTION by Robert Evans for protection from trial until 6/16/03 (jlg) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
388 RESPONSE by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough in opposition to [366-1] motion in limine for exclusion of coworker anecdotal testimony, [366-2] motion for bifurcation of trial (jlg) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
SEALED DOCUMENT. S- 3 (jlg) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
389 MEMORANDUM by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. in opposition to [357-1] motion in limine as to alleged racial slur (jlg) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
390 MEMORANDUM by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. in opposition to [358-1] motion in limine as to sexual harassment policy (jlg) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
391 NOTICE of filing supplemental authority by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. in support of motions in limine (jlg) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
392 OBJECTIONS and designations by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. to plaintiffs' offer of John Moore deposition testimony (jlg) Modified on 06/02/2003 (Entered: 05/30/2003)
393 RESPONSE by EEOC to [366-1] motion in limine for exclusion of coworker anecdotal testimony, [366-2] motion for bifurcation of trial and CROSS MOTION for bifurcation of corporate defendants' 3rd party claim against Robert Evans (jlg) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
394 RESPONSE by EEOC to [360-1] motion in limine to exclude exhibits (jlg) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
SEALED DOCUMENT. S- 4 (jlg) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [356-1] motion to permit cellular phone in courthouse for trial ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/02/2003)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [384-1] motion to permit cellular phones in courthouse for trial ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/02/2003)

39 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

06/02/2003 06/02/2003
06/02/2003 06/03/2003
06/03/2003 06/03/2003 06/03/2003 06/03/2003 06/04/2003 06/04/2003
06/04/2003 06/05/2003 06/05/2003 06/05/2003 06/05/2003 06/05/2003

395 JURY TRIAL held on 6/2/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Court reporter: Carol Jacobs (jlg) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
ORAL ORDER denying [355-1] motion for protection from trial for the days of 6/9/03 & 6/10/03; denying [393-1] motion for bifurcation of corporate defendants' 3rd party claim Robert Evans; denying [366-2] motion for bifurcation of trial ( Entered by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) (jlg) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
396 ORDER granting [383-1] motion for permission to use electronic courtroom technology ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
397 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [366-1] motion in limine for exclusion of coworker anecdotal testimony and denying [366-2] motion for bifurcation of trial ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
SEALED DOCUMENT. S- 5 (jlg) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
SEALED DOCUMENT. S- 6 (jlg) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
398 ORDER denying [358-1] motion in limine as to sexual harassment policy ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
399 JURY TRIAL held on 6/3/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Court reporter: Carol Jacobs (jlg) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
400 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. to permit cellular phone in courthouse for trial (jlg) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
401 ORDER denying [364-1] motion in limine to exclude all evidence of any claimants or witnesses relationships with co-workers that occurred outside the workplace ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
402 JURY TRIAL held on 6/4/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Court reporter: Carol Jacobs (jlg) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
403 ORDER granting [400-1] motion to permit cellular phone in courthouse for trial ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
404 JURY TRIAL held on 6/5/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Court reporter Carol Jacobs (jlg) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
405 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [360-1] motion in limine to exclude exhibits ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
406 ORDER denying [357-1] motion in limine as to alleged racial slur ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
407 AMENDED ORDER amending [406-1] order. ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/06/2003)

40 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

06/09/2003
06/09/2003 06/10/2003 06/11/2003 06/12/2003 06/12/2003 06/12/2003 06/12/2003 06/12/2003 06/12/2003 06/16/2003 06/16/2003 06/17/2003 06/18/2003
06/18/2003

408 ORDER denying as moot [387-1] motion for protection from trial until 6/16/03, denying as moot [378-1] consented motion to extend time to file objections and cross-designations to intervenor plaintiffs' deposition designations, denying as moot [368-1] supplemental motion for protection from trial until the week of 6/16/03, denying as moot [365-1] joint motion to extend time to file responses to motions in limine ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/09/2003)
409 JURY TRIAL held on 6/9/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Court reporter: Claudia Spangler-Fry (jlg) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
410 JURY TRIAL held on 6/10/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Court Reporter: Claudia Spangler-Fry (jlg) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
411 JURY TRIAL held on 6/11/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Court reporter: Claudia Spangler-Fry (jlg) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
412 SECOND AMENDED PROPOSED jury instructions by EEOC, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough (jlg) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
412 SECOND AMENDED PROPOSED verdict form filed by EEOC, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough (jlg) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
413 NOTICE of filing pursuant to court's order, ore tenus, dated 6/11/03 by EEOC, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough (jlg) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
414 JURY TRIAL held on 6/12/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Court reporter: Claudia Spangler-Fry (jlg) (Entered: 06/13/2003)
415 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. with memorandum in support for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50) as to punitive damages claims (jlg) Modified on 06/16/2003 (Entered: 06/16/2003)
416 MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. with memorandum in support for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50) as to sexual harassment claims of Melissa Scarborough (jlg) Modified on 06/19/2003 (Entered: 06/16/2003)
417 JURY TRIAL held on 6/16/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Court reporter: Pearl Caramazza (jlg) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
ORAL MOTION in open court by Robert Evans for (Rule 50) judgment as a matter of law (jlg) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
418 JURY TRIAL held on 6/17/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Court reporter Pearl Caramazza (jlg) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
419 ORDER denying [416-1] motion for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50) as to sexual harassment claims of Melissa Scarborough, denying [415-1] motion for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50) as to punitive damages claims ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
420 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [0-0] motion for (Rule 50) judgment as a matter of law ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/19/2003)

41 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

06/18/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003 06/20/2003 06/20/2003 06/20/2003 06/20/2003 06/20/2003 06/20/2003 06/20/2003 06/20/2003 06/20/2003
06/23/2003 06/26/2003
07/10/2003
07/15/2003 07/15/2003

421 JURY TRIAL held on 6/18/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Court reporter Pearl Caramazza (jlg) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
422 JURY TRIAL held on 6/19/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich Court reporter Pearl Caramazza (Montana Reporting) (wlb) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
423 ORDER that the third party defendant Evans's Rule 50 motion is denied. ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (wlb) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
424 TRANSCRIPT of trial held on 6/3/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Transcript filed separately. (wlb) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
425 JURY TRIAL held on 6/20/03 before Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Court reporter Pearl Caramazza (jlg) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
ORAL ORDER that lunch be provided to jurors. ( Entered by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) (jlg) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
426 WITNESS LIST by defendant Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, defendant Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
427 WITNESS LIST by plaintiff EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
428 EXHIBIT LIST by plaintiff EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
429 AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST by defendant Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, defendant Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
430 COURT'S EXHIBIT LIST (jlg) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
431 COURT'S JURY INSTRUCTIONS (jlg) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
432 JURY VERDICT for EEOC and against Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur.; jury verdict for Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. against Robert Evans (jlg) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
433 NOTICE of exhibits placed in the exhibit room (jury trial - 3 envelopes) (jlh) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
434 ORDER denying as moot [351-1] consented motion for protection from trial for the month of July, 2003 ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/27/2003)
435 ORDER TO SHOW cause for why plaintiffs have not submitted a final judgment pursuant to the jury verdict in this case: Scheduled for Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jnb) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
436 RESPONSE to show cause order filed by plaintiff EEOC (jlg) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
437 NOTICE of plaintiffs' proposed final judgment on monetary damages and plaintiff EEOC's notice of intent to file motion seeking final judgment on injunctive relief by EEOC, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough (jlg) (Entered: 07/15/2003)

42 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

07/15/2003 07/17/2003 07/17/2003
07/22/2003 07/24/2003 07/25/2003 08/11/2003 08/11/2003 08/12/2003 08/12/2003 08/29/2003 09/29/2003 10/10/2003
10/15/2003
10/23/2003 12/04/2003 02/11/2004 02/11/2004

438 NOTICE of intention to file objections to proposed judgment by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
439 NOTICE to the court regarding defendants' objections to EEOC's proposed final judgment by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 07/17/2003)
440 RESPONSE to show cause order filed by plaintiff EEOC, intervenor-plaintiff Sheri Calvo, intervenor-plaintiff Veronica Ferek, intervenor-plaintiff Melissa Scarborough (jlg) (Entered: 07/17/2003)
441 SECOND NOTICE regarding objections to proposed final judgment by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (jlg) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
442 OBJECTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. to [437-1] proposed final judgment for monetary damages (jlg) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
443 MOTION by EEOC for post-trial injunctive relief (jlg) (Entered: 07/28/2003)
444 RESPONSE by EEOC to [442-1] objections to proposed final judgment (jlg) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
445 RESPONSE by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. in opposition to [443-1] motion for post-trial injunctive relief (jlg) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
446 MOTION by Robert Evans with memorandum in support for new trial (jlg) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
447 RESPONSE by Chevys, Inc. to [443-1] motion for post-trial injunctive relief (jlg) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
448 RESPONSE by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. in opposition to [446-1] motion for new trial (jlg) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
449 ORDER denying [295-1] motion to dismiss 2nd amended complaint ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
450 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Chevys, Inc. (unopposed) to extend time to respond to 2nd amended complaint until 10/24/03 (jlg) Modified on 10/14/2003 (Entered: 10/10/2003)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [450-1] unopposed motion to extend time to respond to 2nd amended complaint; setting answer due for 10/24/03 for Chevys, Inc. (Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich) ctc (ag) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
451 SUGGESTION of bankruptcy by Chevys, Inc. (jab) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
452 NOTICE by EEOC of unavailability of counsel from 12/22/03 to 1/2/04 (jlg) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
453 NOTICE of limited attorney appearance for Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough by Jeffrey Geldert Brown (jlg) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
454 MOTION by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough with memorandum in support for attorney fees and for costs and expenses (jlg) (Entered: 02/11/2004)

43 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

02/11/2004 02/25/2004 02/26/2004 03/01/2004
03/15/2004 04/12/2004 04/15/2004 04/15/2004 04/29/2004 11/23/2004 11/23/2004 11/23/2004 11/23/2004 11/24/2004
12/09/2004

455 REQUEST for oral argument by Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough re: [454-1] motion for attorney fees, [454-2] motion for costs and expenses (jlg) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
456 MOTION by EEOC for status conference (jlg) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
457 CONSENTED MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (consented) to extend time to response to motion for attorneys' fees until 4/12/04 (jlg) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [457-1] consented motion to extend time to response to motion for attorneys' fees until 4/12/04, response to motion set to 4/12/04 for [454-1] motion for attorney fees, set to 4/12/04 for [454-2] motion for costs and expenses ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
458 RESPONSE by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. in opposition to [456-1] motion for status conference (jlg) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
459 CONSENTED MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaurant (consented) for extension of time to serve their opposition to intervenors' motion to tax fees, costs and expenses (bls) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
460 CONSENTED MOTION by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. (consented) to extend time to file opposition to motion to tax fees, costs and expenses (jlg) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
461 MEMORANDUM by Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc, Innovative Restaur. in opposition to [454-1] motion for attorney fees, [454-2] motion for costs and expenses (jlg) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [459-1] consent motion for extension of time to serve their opposition to intervenors' motion to tax fees, costs and expenses ( Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
462 ORDER denying 446 Motion for new trial . Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 11/23/2004. (jm, ) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
463 ORDER denying 443 Motion for injunctive relief. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 11/23/2004. (jm, ) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
464 ENDORSED ORDER denying 456 Motion for Hearing . Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 11/23/2004. (jm, ) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
465 ORDER finding as moot [460] Motion to extend time . Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 11/23/2004. (jm, ) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
466 ORDER re 437 Notice (Other) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek, Melissa Scarborough, entering final judgment for Plaintiffs. This final judgment does not close the case due to the pending successor liability claim as to Chevy's, Inc.. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 11/24/2004. (jm, ) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
467 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Post Trial) by Rio Bravo International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Silverman, Scott) (Entered: 12/09/2004)

44 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

12/09/2004 12/20/2004 12/21/2004 12/22/2004 12/27/2004 01/10/2005 01/10/2005 01/13/2005 01/20/2005 01/25/2005 01/31/2005 02/09/2005
03/01/2005

468 MOTION for taxation of costs by Rio Bravo International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D - Part 1# 5 Exhibit D - Part 2)(Silverman, Scott) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
469 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Farrell, Michael) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
470 ENDORSED ORDER granting 469 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 467 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Post Trial) Responses due by 1/10/2005. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 12/21/2004. (jm, ) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
471 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 467 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Post Trial) by Melissa Scarborough, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek. (Outten, Angela) (Entered: 12/22/2004)
472 ENDORSED ORDER granting 471 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 467 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Post Trial) Responses due by 1/10/2005. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 12/27/2004. (jm, ) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
473 RESPONSE in opposition re 467 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Post Trial) filed by Melissa Scarborough, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek. (Outten, Angela) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
474 RESPONSE in opposition re 467 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Post Trial) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Farrell, Michael) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
475 NOTICE of supplemental authority re 467 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Post Trial) by Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc., Rio Bravo International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Authority)(Silverman, Scott) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
476 ORDER denying 468 Motion for taxation of costs. Signed by Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 1/20/2005. (DK) (Entered: 01/20/2005)
477 First MOTION for reconsideration re 476 Order on motion for taxation of costs and Enlargement of Time by Applebee's International. (Silverman, Scott) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
478 NOTICE of Filing of Affidavit of William DeMeza Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) by Rio Bravo International, Inc., Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc., re [461] Memorandum in opposition (Silverman, Scott) Modified on 2/1/2005 (apv). (Entered: 01/31/2005)
479 NOTICE of filing Affidavit of David J. Linesch in Support of Plaintiff/Intervenors Motion to Tax Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Melissa Scarborough, Sheri Calvo, Veronica Ferek re 454 Motion for attorney feesMotion for taxation of costs (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of David J. Linesch )(Gray, Christopher) Modified on 2/10/2005 (apv). (Entered: 02/09/2005)
480 ORDER granting 477 Motion for reconsideration and denying without prejudice 468 motion to tax costs. Signed by Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 3/1/2005. (JAS) (Entered: 03/01/2005)

45 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

03/02/2005 03/02/2005 03/11/2005 03/17/2005 03/18/2005 03/18/2005 03/18/2005 03/23/2005 03/28/2005
04/14/2005 05/02/2005 08/11/2005
11/14/2005 01/09/2006

481 ORDER denying 467 Motion for judgment as a Matter of Law . Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 3/2/2005. (jm, ) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
482 ORDER ruling deferred 454 Motion for attorney fees, ruling deferred 454 Motion for taxation of costs . Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 3/2/2005. (jm, ) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
483 PROPOSED BILL OF COSTS by Rio Bravo International, Inc.. (Zinober, Peter) (Entered: 03/11/2005)
484 MEDIATION REPORT Hearing held on March 16, 2005 Hearing outcome: Settled at mediation.(Hanley, Mark) (Entered: 03/17/2005)
485 ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot 454 Motion for attorney fees, denying as moot 454 Motion for taxation of costs, due to settlement (Dkt. 484). Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 3/18/2005. (jm, ) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
486 REVISED BILL OF COSTS entered in the amount of $1,227.70 against Third Party Defendant, Robert Evans, and in favor of Third Party Plaintiffs. (cl-m) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
487 ENDORSED ORDER dismissing case re 484 Mediation report. All claims have been resolved. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 3/18/2005. (jm, ) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
488 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Chevys, Inc., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Farrell, Michael) (Entered: 03/23/2005)
489 ENDORSED ORDER re 488 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,, Chevys, Inc., granting stipulation. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 3/28/2005. (jm, ) (Entered: 03/28/2005)
490 NOTICE by Rio Bravo International, Inc., Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. re 466 Order, Satisfaction of Judgment (Silverman, Scott) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
491 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission satisfaction of judgment (Farrell, Michael) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
492 EXHIBIT RETURN FOR PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT COUNSEL: The records in this case indicate that this case was disposed of more than thirty (30) days ago. The records also indicate that the Clerk's Office is in possession of various exhibits used during the proceedings.Pursuant to Local Rule 5.04, you are notified that you have thirty (30) days to contact the Clerk's Office to arrange for the removal of the exhibits from the custody of the Clerk's Office, or the exhibits will be destroyed, as permitted by Local Rule 5.04. (jlh, ) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
493 Satisfaction of Judgment by Rio Bravo International, Inc., Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. re 466 Order, (Silverman, Scott) Modified on 11/15/2005 (apv, ). (Entered: 11/14/2005)
494 CLERK'S certificate of destruction of exhibits and/or exhibit substitutes (Plaintiff and Defendant) (jlh, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

46 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?123105472683295-L_3...

08/29/2006

495 CLERK'S certificate of destruction of COURT'S exhibits and/or exhibit substitutes (jlh, ) (Entered: 08/29/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/25/2007 13:51:30

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

8:99-cv-01371-EAK-MAP

Billable Pages:

30

Cost:

2.40

47 of 47

6/25/2007 12:51 PM

 
 The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-23-03.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JUNE 23, 2003

CONTACT: Federico Costales Miami District Director (305) 530-6060
TTY: (800) 669-6820
Manuel Zurita Tampa Area Director (813) 228-2280
Delner Franklin-Thomas Miami Regional Attorney (305) 240-1017 (cell) (305) 530-6001
Michael Farrell Supervisory Trial Attorney (305) 301-7887 (cell)

EEOC Wins $1.55 Million Dollar Jury Verdict in Sexual Harassment Suit Against Florida Restaurant
Five Former Waitresses/Hostesses Subjected to Physical and Verbal Abuse in Clearwater
MIAMI - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that a jury in Federal District Court in Tampa, Florida, has returned a $1,550,000 verdict in a major sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the EEOC and the private law firm of Florin, Roebig & Walker, P.A. The lawsuit was originally brought against Applebee's International, Inc., Rio Bravo International, Inc. and Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc. for sexual harassment occurring from approximately 1994 until early 1998 at their formerly owned Rio Bravo Cantina restaurant in Clearwater, Fla. (EEOC, et al. v. Rio Bravo International, Inc. et. al., Civil Case No. 99-1371-CIV-T-17A).
After a 12-day trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the EEOC and private plaintiffs, awarding $10,000 each to the five women represented in the case to compensate them for the emotional pain and suffering they endured. The jury also assessed punitive damages against the remaining two corporate defendants in the amount of $500,000 each for three of the five women.
The EEOC lawsuit, filed in 1999, said that former waitresses and hostesses were subjected to egregious acts of verbal and physical sexual conduct on the part of one of the employer's assistant managers and, despite repeated complaints to management, the corporate defendants failed to take necessary steps to stop the harassment. The harassment of the young women included touching, groping and rubbing their breasts, legs and buttocks in a sexually offensive manner; forcing the women to sit on the assistant manager's lap before leaving their shifts; attempting to kiss them; and making graphic, offensive sexual remarks to them. EEOC asserted that the women repeatedly complained to management about the sexually offensive conduct; however, the corporate defendants failed to implement corrective action, allowing the behavior to continue and escalate.
Delner Franklin-Thomas, EEOC's Regional Attorney for the Miami District Office, said: "I commend the women for their courage to stay the course throughout this litigation. I believe this jury has sent a strong message to the community that there are serious consequences for employers who allow the type of egregious sexual conduct that occurred here to infest their workplace."
The case was tried on behalf of the EEOC by Senior Trial Attorneys Carla Von Greiff and Kenneth Gillespie. The Florin law firm intervened in the case after EEOC filed suit. Prior to trial, the Court dismissed Applebee's International, Inc. as a named defendant in the case.
EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Michael Farrell said, "Today, this jury acknowledged that individuals have a right to work in an environment free of sexual harassment and that employers have a duty to protect that right."
Federico Costales, Director of the EEOC's Miami office, added: "I am confident that this verdict will encourage employers to be vigilant in their efforts to comply with the federal laws which prohibit sex discrimination in the workplace."

1 of 2

6/25/2007 2:32 PM

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-23-03.html
The EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which covers discrimination based on national origin, sex (including pregnancy and sexual harassment), race, color, and religion. The EEOC also enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, which covers discrimination based on age (for persons age 40 and over); the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits sex-based wage discrimination; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified people with disabilities. The Legal Unit of the Miami District Office of the EEOC can be reached at 305-530-6001. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on June 23, 2003.
Return to Home Page

2 of 2

6/25/2007 2:32 PM

 
 FY 2003 Office of General Counsel Annual Report

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/03annrpt/index.html

In EEOC v. Rio Bravo Int'l, Inc., and Innovative Restaurant Concepts, Inc., the EEOC alleged that defendants, owner/operators of a restaurant located in Clearwater, Florida, subjected five female servers and hostesses at the restaurant to a sexually hostile working environment and retaliated against some of them for complaining about the harassment. The jury awarded $50,000 ($10,000 each to five claimants) in compensatory damages and $1.5 million ($500,000 each to three claimants) in punitive damages based on the hostile working environment claim. (The damages awards were reduced by the court to comply with the $300,000 statutory caps).

1 of 1

6/25/2007 2:33 PM