1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, SBN 084965 DAVID F. OFFEN-BROWN, SBN 063321
2 LINDA S. ORDONIO-DIXON, SBN 172830 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
3 San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500
4 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260 Telephone No. (415) 625-5658
5 Fax No. (415) 625-5657

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
11 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

12

Plaintiff,

v.

13

GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC.

14 d/b/a GRIMMWAY FARMS;

ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

15

Defendant.

16

COMPLAINT- CIVIL RIGHTS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.)
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

17

18 NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

20 Civil Rights Act of 1991 to corre ct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, fe male, and

21 to provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Ana-Berta Rubio and other similarly situated female

22 employees who were adversely affected by such

practices. As alleged below, defendants

23 GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a GR IMMWAY FARMS (Grimmway) and ESPARZA

24 ENTERPRISES, INC. (Esparza) subjected Ms. Rubio and similarly situated female employees to an

25 unlawful hostile work environm ent based on their sex. In a ddition, defendants Grimmway and

26 Esparza unlawfully retaliated against Ms Rubio by term inating her employm ent for engaging in

27 protected activity.

28

COMPLAINT

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 1.

Jurisdiction of this C ourt is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and

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

4 Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and §102 of the Civil Rights Act

5 of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.

6 2.

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within

7 the state of California, County of Kern, which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

8

9

PARTIES

10 3.

Plaintiff, the Equal Employm ent Opportunity Commission (EEOC), is the agency of the

11 United States of Am erica charged with the adm inistration, interpretation, and enforcem ent of Title

12 VII and is expressly au thorized to b ring this action by §706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

13 §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

14 4.

At all relevant times, defendant Grimmway has been a California corporation, doing business

15 in the State of California, in the County of Kern, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.

16 5.

At all relevant times, defendant Esparza has been a California corporation, doing business in

17 the State of California, in the County of Kern, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.

18 6.

At all relevant tim es, defendant Grimmway has continuously been an em ployer engaged in

19 an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §701(b), (g), an d (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

20 §2000e-(b), (g), and (h).

21 7.

At all relevant tim es, defendant Esparza has continuously b een an employer engaged in an

22 industry affecting com merce within the m eaning of §701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

23 §2000e-(b), (g), and (h).

24 //

25 //

26 //

27 //

28

COMPLAINT

2.

1

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

2

Sexual Harassment

3 8.

More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Party Ana-Berta Rubio

4 filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging v iolations of Title VII by Defendants. All

5 conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

6 9.

Since at least July 2003, defendants Grimmw ay and Esparza have engaged in unlawful

7 employment practices at its Califo rnia facilities in viol ation of §703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S .C.

8 §2000e-2(a). These practices include subjecting Ms. Rubio and similarly situated female employees

9 to a sexually hostile, abusive, intimidating, and offensive work environment.

10 10. The effect of the practices com plained of in paragraph 9 above has been to deprive Ms.

11 Rubio and similarly situated female employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise to

12 adversely affect their status as employees because of their gender, female.

13 11. The unlawful em ployment practices com plained of in paragraph 9 above were and are

14 intentional.

15 12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 9 above were and are done

16 with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Rubio and sim ilarly

17 situated female employees.

18

19

Retaliation

20 13. On or about Septem ber 24, 2003, defendant s Grimmway and Esparza engaged in the

21 unlawful employment practice of retaliation at thei r California facilities, in violation of §704(a) of

22 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a), by terminating Ms. Rubio for engaging in protected activity.

23 14. The effect of the practice co mplained of in paragraph 13 above has been to deprive Ms.

24 Rubio of e qual employment opportunities and otherw ise to adversely affect her status as an

25 employee because of her protected activity.

26 15. The unlawful employment practice complained of in paragraph 13 above was intentional.

27 16. The unlawful em ployment practice com plained of in paragraph 13 was done with m alice

28

COMPLAINT

3.

1 and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Rubio. 2

3

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

4

WHEREFORE, the EEOC respectfully requests that this Court:

5

A. Grant a per manent injunction en joining defendants Grimmway and Esparza, their

6 officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them , from

7 engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and/or retaliation.

8

B. Order defendants Grimmway an d Esparza to institute and carry out policies,

9 practices, and programs which provide equal empl oyment opportunities for fe male employees and

10 which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

11

C. Order defendants to make whole Ms. Rubio and similarly situated female employees,

12 by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgm ent interest, in amounts to b e determined at trial,

13 and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices,

14 including but not limited to reinstatement.

15

D. Order defendants Grimmway and Espar za to m ake whole Ms. Rubio and si milarly

16 situated female employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting

17 from the unlawful employment practices described above, including medical expenses, with interest,

18 in amounts to be determined at trial.

19

E. Order defendants Grimmway and Espar za to m ake whole Ms. Rubio and si milarly

20 situated female employees by providing compen sation for past and future non-pecuniary losses

21 resulting from the above unlawful em ployment practices, including pain and suffering, em otional

22 distress, indignity, loss of enjoyment of life, lo ss of self-esteem, and humiliation, in amounts to be

23 determined at trial.

24

F. Order defendants Grimmway and Esparza to pay Ms. Rubio and similarly situated

25 female employees punitive dam ages for their malic ious and reckless conduct described above, in

26 amounts to be determined at trial.

27

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.

28

COMPLAINT

4.

1

H. Award the EEOC its costs in this action.

2

3

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

4

The EEOC requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

5

6

7

Respectf

ully submitted,

8

9

JAMES LEE

Deputy General Counsel

10 U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

11

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

1801 L Street, N.W.

12

Washington, D.C. 20507

13

14 May 3, 2006 15 16

______//s//_________________________ WILLIAM R. TAMAYO Regional Attorney

17

_____ //s//__________________________

DAVID F. OFFEN-BROWN

18

Supervisory Trial Attorney

19 _____//s//__________________________

20

LINDA ORDONIO-DIXON

Senior Trial Attorney

21 Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

22

23

U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

24

San Francisco District Office

350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500

25

San Francisco, California 94105-1260

26

27

28

COMPLAINT

5.

 
 1 WILLIAM J. SMITH #056116 SHELLEY G. BRYANT #222925
2 W. J. SMITH & ASSOCIATES
2350 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 132 3 Fresno, California 93711
(559) 432-0986 Telephone 4 (559) 432-4871 Facsimile

5 Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenor, ANA-BERTA RUBIO

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
11 Plaintiff, and
12 ANA-BERTA RUBIO,
13 Plaintiff-Intervenor,
14 v.
15 GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a
16 GRIMMWAY FARMS, ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC., and FRANCISCO
17 HERNANDEZ,

18

Defendants.

) Case No. CIV-F-06-00561 AWI-DLB ) ) COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION ) CIVIL RIGHTS ) (DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

19

20

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

21

1. Plaintiff-Intervenor, ANA-BERTA RUBIO, (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Intervenor”) brings

22 this action for damages resulting from Defendant’s violation of her civil rights, as secured under the

23 Constitution and the laws of the United States and the State of California, by its maintenance of

24 unlawful practices which had the purpose or effect of discriminating against her on the basis of her

25 sex, and retaliation.

26

JURY DEMAND

27

2. Plaintiff-Intervenor hereby demands a jury trial as provided by Rule 38(a) of the

28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - CIVIL RIGHTS, Case No. CIV-F-06-00561 AWI-DLB

Page 1

1

JURISDICTION

2

3. This action is brought to redress violations of Plaintiff-Intervenor’s rights as guaranteed

3 by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., as amended, California

4 Government Code §12900, et seq., and Article I, Section 8 of the California Constitution, to secure

5 protection against and to redress deprivation of her right to be free of sex harassment, retaliation, and

6 discrimination in employment. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

7 §1343(4) to secure the above-specified rights. This court also has jurisdiction over the subject matter

8 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 in that this civil action arises in part under the Constitution or laws of

9 the United States of America. Plaintiff-Intervenor requests that the court exercise jurisdiction over

10 her state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

11

PARTIES

12

4. Plaintiff-Intervenor is a Hispanic female who was sexually harassed and retaliated

13 against by Defendant employers, GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. doing business as

14 GRIMMWAY FARMS (hereinafter “Grimmway”), and ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.,

15 (hereinafter “Esparza”) and Defendant, FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (hereinafter “Hernandez”), a

16 supervisor for Grimmway and Esparza and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s direct supervisor, creating a hostile

17 work environment and quid pro quo, in Kern County, California, at the time of the acts giving rise to

18 this action.

19

5. Plaintiff , EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, (hereinafter

20 “Plaintiff”) is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administrative enforcement

21 and interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

22

6. Defendant, Grimmway, was an employer at all times relevant herein, and is a California

23 corporation, qualified and doing business in the State of California, and has continuously had and does

24 now have at least fifteen employees. Defendant, Grimmway, is an enterprise engaged in commerce

25 within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b).

26

7. Defendant, Esparza, was an employer at all times relevant herein, and is a California

27 corporation, qualified and doing business in the State of California, and has continuously had and does

28 now have at least fifteen employees. Defendant, Esparza, is an enterprise engaged in commerce within

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - CIVIL RIGHTS, Case No. CIV-F-06-00561 AWI-DLB

Page 2

1 the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b).

2

8. At all times relevant herein Defendant, Hernandez, was an employee and agent of and

3 supervisor for Defendants, Grimmway and Esparza, within the meaning of California Government

4 Code §12926(r).

5

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

6

9. On or about November 11, 2004, Plaintiff-Intervenor filed a charge with Plaintiff

7 against Defendant, Grimmway, alleging discrimination, sex harassment, and retaliation. On

8 November 16, 2005, Plaintiff issued a Determination finding that Defendant violated Title VII of the

9 Civil Rights Act of 1964 by sexually harassing and retaliating against Plaintiff-Intervenor because of

10 her sex, female.

11

10. On or about April 3, 2005, Plaintiff-Intervenor filed a charge with Plaintiff against

12 Defendant, Esparza, alleging discrimination, sex harassment, and retaliation. On December 1, 2005,

13 Plaintiff issued a Determination finding that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

14 1964 by sexually harassing and retaliating against Plaintiff-Intervenor because of her sex, female.

15

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: TITLE VII

16

11. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Plaintiff-Intervenor

17 filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants, Grimmway and

18 Esparza. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

19

12. Since at least July 2003, Defendants, Grimmway and Esparza, have engaged in

20 unlawful employment practices in violation of §703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1).

21 These practices include subjecting Plaintiff-Intervenor to a sexually hostile, abusive, intimidating and

22 offensive work environment, which culminated in a tangible employment action.

23

13. Since at least September 2004, Defendants subjected Plaintiff-Intervenor to adverse

24 employment actions in retaliation for her opposition to and rejection of the sexual harassment in

25 violation of §704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a). These practices include but are not limited

26 to isolation from other employees, continued harassment, and, ultimately, termination of her

27 employment on or about September 24, 2004.

28

14. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to adversely affect Plaintiff-

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - CIVIL RIGHTS, Case No. CIV-F-06-00561 AWI-DLB

Page 3

1 Intervenor’s employment status because of the sexual harassment and on account of retaliation.

2

15. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are intentional.

3

16. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice

4 and/or reckless indifference to the State of California federally protected rights of Plaintiff-Intervenor.

5

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT

6

CODE §12900, ET SEQ.

7

17. Plaintiff-Intervenor re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every

8 allegation stated in Paragraphs 1 through 16, above, as though fully stated herein.

9

18. Plaintiff-Intervenor is informed and believes and thereon alleges that a substantial or

10 motivating factor in Defendant’s discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, was her sex,

11 female, in violation of California Government Code §12900, et seq.

12

19. Under California Government Code §12940(k), Defendants, Grimmway and Esparza,

13 had a duty to prevent discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation against Plaintiff-Intervenor

14 and to provide her with a workplace which was free of discrimination and harassment. Defendants

15 failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination against and harassment of Plaintiff-Intervenor

16 on the basis of her sex.

17

20. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ acts of harassment and retaliation, Plaintiff-

18 Intervenor has suffered and continues to suffer substantial economic losses and interest thereon,

19 incurred in seeking and performing substitute employment and earnings, bonuses, deferred

20 compensation and other employment benefits which Plaintiff-Intervenor would have received. She

21 has suffered and continues to suffer both physical and non-physical injuries, including severe

22 emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish all to her damage in an amount

23 to be proven at trial.

24

21. In doing the acts and/or failing to do the acts alleged herein above, the Defendants, and

25 each of them, engaged in discriminatory acts and conduct with malice towards Plaintiff-Intervenor

26 and/or a reckless indifference to her statutorily protected rights and in conscious disregard of the

27 rights, both statutory and common law guaranteed Plaintiff-Intervenor by the State of California. As

28 such, Defendants are guilty of oppression and malice for which Plaintiff-Intervenor is entitled to

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - CIVIL RIGHTS, Case No. CIV-F-06-00561 AWI-DLB

Page 4

1 punitive damages, in an amount to be proven at trial.

2

22. California Code of Civil Procedure §1021 provides that attorneys’ fees are recoverable

3 in an action for which they are specifically provided by statute. California Government Code

4 §12965(b) provides that reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs are recoverable herein by the prevailing

5 party, within the discretion of the court. Plaintiff-Intervenor has retained attorneys for the prosecution

6 of this action. As a result, Plaintiff-Intervenor is entitled to her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs

7 herein incurred.

8

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1708.5

9

23. Plaintiff-Intervenor re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every

10 allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 16 and paragraphs18 through 22 above, as though fully

11 stated herein.

12

24. Defendants, Grimmway, Esparza and Hernandez, subjected Plaintiff-Intervenor to

13 unlawful sexual battery in the workplace in violation of California Civil Code §1708.5. From July

14 2003 through September 2004, Defendant, Francisco Hernandez, who was Plaintiff-Intervenor’s

15 direct supervisor, repeatedly acted with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with an intimate

16 part of Plaintiff-Intervenor’s body, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff-Intervenor resulted.

17 Defendant, Hernandez also repeatedly acted with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with

18 Plaintiff-Intervenor by use of his intimate part, and sexually offensive contact with Plaintiff-

19 Intervenor resulted.

20

25. Defendant, Hernandez, was at all times relevant hereto, the agent and employee of

21 Defendants, Grimmway and Esparza, and Defendant, Hernandez, was acting, at least in part, within

22 the course and scope of his employment and agency, with the express and implied permission, consent

23 and knowledge, approval and/or ratification of Defendants, Grimmway and Esparza. Defendants,

24 Grimmway and Esparza, aided, abetted, condoned, permitted, approved, authorized and/or ratified

25 the unlawful acts of Defendant, Hernandez, in violating California Civil Code §1708.5

26

26. The statute of limitations regarding Plaintiff-Intervenor’s claim under California Civil

27 Code §1708.5 was equitably tolled during the pendency of the administrative proceeding conducted

28 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission/California Department of Fair Employment and

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - CIVIL RIGHTS, Case No. CIV-F-06-00561 AWI-DLB

Page 5

1 Housing. Defendants had timely notice of Plaintiff-Intervenor’s claim for sexual harassment and

2 were not prejudiced in gathering evidence to defend themselves against Plaintiff-Intervenor’s claim

3 based on sexual battery. Plaintiff-Intervenor has acted in good faith and engaged in reasonable

4 conduct in filing this claim.

5

PRAYER

6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor prays this Court for the relief set forth below:

7

1. For back pay and employment benefits in order to make Plaintiff-Intervenor whole for

8 injuries sustained on account of Defendants’ acts;

9

2. For front pay to compensate Plaintiff-Intervenor for the future losses occasioned by

10 Defendants’ acts;

11

3. For emotional distress damages;

12

4. For compensatory damages according to proof at trial;

13

5. For punitive damages according to proof at trial;

14

6. For interest on all back pay and employment benefits awarded to make Plaintiff-

15 Intervenor whole and to deter Defendants from engaging in discriminatory activities in the future;

16

7. For reasonable attorney fees, costs and disbursements occasioned by this litigation;

17 and

18

8. For injunctive relief and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem

19 proper.

20 DATED: May 18, 2007

21

W. J. SMITH & ASSOCIATES

22

23

/s/ WILLIAM J. SMITH

WILLIAM J. SMITH, Attorney for

24

Plaintiff-Intervenor, ANA-BERTA RUBIO

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - CIVIL RIGHTS, Case No. CIV-F-06-00561 AWI-DLB

Page 6

 
 Live 3.1.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159284205953124-L_1...

CIVIL, CLOSED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California - Live System (Fresno) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cv-00561-LJO-DLB

EEOC v. Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. Assigned to: District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill Referred to: Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Date Filed: 05/10/2006 Date Terminated: 11/19/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Linda Susan Ordonio-Dixon Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 625-5654 Fax: (415) 625-5657 Email: Linda.Ordonio-Dixon@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Ana-Berta Rubio

represented by William J. Smith W. J. Smith & Associates 2350 West Shaw Avenue Suite 132 Fresno, CA 93711 559-432-0986 Fax: 559-432-4871 Email: wsmith@wjslawoffice.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. Doing business as Grimmway Farms

represented by Lorna Hislop Brumfield LeBeau-Thelen, LLP 5001 E. Commercenter Dr., Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93309 (661) 325-8962

1 of 7

3/17/2008 8:05 PM

Live 3.1.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159284205953124-L_1...

Defendant Esparza Enterprises, Inc.

Fax: (661) 325-1127 Email: lbrumfield@lebeauthelen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jay Nile Kinney LeBeau-Thelen, LLP 5001 E. Commercenter Dr., Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93309 (661) 325-8962 Fax: (661) 325-1127 Email: jnkinney@lebeauthelen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul J. Bauer Dowling, Aaron & Keeler 8080 North Palm Avenue, Third Floor Post Office Box 28902 Fresno, CA 93729-8902 559432-4500 Fax: 559432-4590 Email: PBauer@daklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/10/2006 05/10/2006 05/11/2006
05/11/2006
05/11/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
AT CASE CONVERTED to CIVIL CASE 1:06-cv-561 AWI DLB(Martin, S) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Grimmway Farms, Esparza Enterprises, Inc.* with answer to complaint due within *20* days. Attorney *Linda Susan Ordonio-Dixon* *U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission* *350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500* *San Francisco, CA 94105-1260*. (Martin, S) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
3 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 8/10/2006 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (DLB) before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Forms # 2 VDRP Forms) (Martin, S) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
4 CLERK'S NOTICE (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) to Linda Ordonio-Dixon) re 1 Complaint. Your document is not signed. Your signature on an electronically filed document is indicated by /s/ First Name-Last Name. Please include this text on the signature line of all future filings(Local Rule 7-131c). (Carter-Ford, R) (Entered: 05/11/2006)

2 of 7

3/17/2008 8:05 PM

Live 3.1.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159284205953124-L_1...

07/27/2006 08/09/2006 10/05/2006 10/06/2006 12/07/2006 12/13/2006
02/14/2007 02/15/2007
02/20/2007 02/24/2007 02/27/2007

5 MOTION for EXTENSION Case Management Conference and Deadlines by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Linda Ordonio-Dixon# 2 Exhibit)(Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
6 ORDER TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE Scheduling Conference CONTINUED from 8/10/2006 to 10/12/2006 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (DLB) before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck. signed by Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/9/2006. (Hernandez, M) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
7 MOTION to CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATES by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Ordonio-Dixon)(Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
8 ORDER Scheduling Conference RESET from 10/12/2006 to 12/14/2006 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (DLB) before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck. Joint Scheduling Report Deadline 12/7/2006. signed by Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/6/2006. (Hernandez, M) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
9 MOTION for EXTENSION To Continue Case Mgt Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Ordonio-Dixon)(Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
10 THIRD MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND ORDER The Scheduling Conference is CONTINUED to 2/21/2007 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (DLB) before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck. The Joint Scheduling Report is due 2/14/2007. signed by Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/13/2006. (Hernandez, M) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
11 MOTION for EXTENSION 2 weeks by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Motion for Extension of Case Management Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
12 CLERK'S NOTICE (TEXT ONLY) to Linda Ordonio-Dixon re 11 MOTION for EXTENSION 2 weeks by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Your document is not signed. Your signature on an electronically filed document is indicated by/s/ First Name-Last Name. Please include this text on the signature line of all future filings(Local Rule 7-131c). (Gil-Garcia, A) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
13 ORDER GRANTING 7 Motion to Continue Scheduling Conference from 2/21/2007 to 3/7/2007 at 9:00 am before Magistrate Judge Beck. signed by Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/20/2007. (Hernandez, M) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
14 ORDER by Chief Judge David F. Levi; Due to the recent appointment of Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill to the position of U.S. District Judge, this action is REASSIGNED from Judge Anthony W. Ishii to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill for all further proceedings. (Timken, A) (Entered: 02/24/2007)
15 MINUTE ORDER: (TEXT ONLY) DUE TO REASSIGNMENT OF DISTRICT JUDGE - Scheduling Conference set for 3/7/2007 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4(LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. NOTE: DATE SET BEFORE JUDGE BECK HAS BEEN VACATED (3/7/07). Counsel may appear by

3 of 7

3/17/2008 8:05 PM

Live 3.1.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159284205953124-L_1...

02/28/2007 03/13/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007
03/16/2007
03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/19/2007 04/12/2007 04/12/2007

telephone by arranging a one-line conference call and calling the court at (559) 499-5680. (Lira, I) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
16 MINUTE ORDER: (TEXT ONLY) Scheduling Conference currently set for 3/7/07 has been CONTINUED 6/6/2007 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4(LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. A joint scheduling report is due 5/30/07. (Lira, I) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
17 STIPULATION and Proposed Order by Grimmway Enterprises, Inc., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Esparza Enterprises, Inc.. Attorney Bauer, Paul J. added. (Bauer, Paul) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
18 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Proof of Service) (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
19 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "Proof of Service" of Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Grimmway Farms (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
20 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "Proof of Service" of Esparza Enterprises, Inc. (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
21 MINUTE ORDER: Scheduling Conference currently set for 6/6/07 has been CONTINUED to 6/12/2007 at 08:45 AM in Courtroom 4(LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. STANDING ORDER attached. (Judge O'Neill is required to attend an out-of-district seminar the week of June 5th). (Lira, I) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
22 CLERK'S NOTICE: Attn: Linda Ordonio-Dixon regarding 20 Certificate of Service, 18 Certificate of Service, 19 Certificate of Service - Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint ~ When filing a proof of service of the Summons and Complaint, you must use the event Summons Returned Executed under the Service of Process category. Please re-file your document using the correct event. (Kusamura, W) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
23 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. served on 2/23/2007, answer due 3/15/2007. (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
24 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Esparza Enterprises, Inc. served on 2/23/2007, answer due 3/15/2007. (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
25 STIPULATION and ORDER extending defendants response time. Response due by 5/4/2007. Order signed by Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/19/2007. (Timken, A) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
26 MOTION to INTERVENE by Ana-Berta Rubio. Attorney Smith, William J. added. Motion Hearing set for 5/18/2007 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (DLB) before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck. (Smith, William) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
27 MEMORANDUM/RESPONSE in SUPPORT re 26 MOTION to INTERVENE. (Smith, William) (Entered: 04/12/2007)

4 of 7

3/17/2008 8:05 PM

Live 3.1.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159284205953124-L_1...

04/12/2007 04/12/2007 04/13/2007 05/04/2007 05/04/2007 05/07/2007
05/10/2007 05/10/2007
05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/10/2007
05/10/2007
05/14/2007

28 DECLARATION of William J. Smith in in Support of Motion for Leave to Intervene re 26 MOTION to INTERVENE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Smith, William) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
29 PROPOSED ORDER Proposed Order re 26 MOTION to INTERVENE. (Smith, William) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
30 STATEMENT of NON-OPPOSITION to MOTION re 26 MOTION to INTERVENE. (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
31 ANSWER to COMPLAINT with Jury Demand by Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.. Attorney Brumfield, Lorna Hislop added.(Brumfield, Lorna) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
32 ANSWER to COMPLAINT by Esparza Enterprises, Inc..(Bauer, Paul) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
33 MINUTE ORDER: (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) RESET MOTION HEARING as to 26 MOTION to INTERVENE: Motion Hearing RESET from 5/18/2007 to 5/17/2007 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9 (DLB) before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck. (Hernandez, M) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
34 STANDING ORDER for Judge O'Neill (Lira, I) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
35 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT or in the alternative Summary Adjudication of Issues by Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.. Attorney Kinney, Jay Nile added. Motion Hearing set for 6/18/2007 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4(LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. (Kinney, Jay) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
36 MEMORANDUM/RESPONSE in SUPPORT re 35 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT or in the alternative Summary Adjudication of Issues. (Kinney, Jay) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
37 DECLARATION of Rita C, Serda in Support of re 35 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT or in the alternative Summary Adjudication of Issues. (Kinney, Jay) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
38 DECLARATION of Sean McNally in Support of re 35 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT or in the alternative Summary Adjudication of Issues. (Kinney, Jay) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
39 STATEMENT of undisputed material facts in support of motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication by Defendant Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. re 35 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT or in the alternative Summary Adjudication of Issues. (Kinney, Jay) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
40 APPENDIX by Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. re 35 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT or in the alternative Summary Adjudication of Issues filed by Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.,. Appendix of non-case/statutory authorities cited (Kinney, Jay) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
41 STATEMENT of NON-OPPOSITION to MOTION re 26 MOTION to INTERVENE. by Defendant GRIMMWAY (Brumfield, Lorna) (Entered: 05/14/2007)

5 of 7

3/17/2008 8:05 PM

Live 3.1.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159284205953124-L_1...

05/14/2007 05/15/2007
05/18/2007 05/18/2007 05/31/2007
06/04/2007 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/06/2007 06/11/2007 06/11/2007 06/11/2007 06/11/2007 06/12/2007

42 STATEMENT of NON-OPPOSITION to MOTION re 26 MOTION to INTERVENE. by Defendant Esparza Enterprises, Inc. (Bauer, Paul) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
43 MINUTE ORDER: (TEXT ENTRY ONLY) Motion to Intervene by Ana-Berta Rubio 26 set for hearing 5/17/07 at 2:00pm before Magistrate Judge Beck IS TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. The motion is unopposed, the court will issue written order. (Hernandez, M) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
44 ORDER GRANTING Motion to Intervene 26 . Signed by Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/15/07. (Hellings, J) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
45 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT by Ana-Berta Rubio.(Smith, William) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
46 MEMORANDUM/RESPONSE in OPPOSITION re 35 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT or in the alternative Summary Adjudication of Issues. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Disputed Facts# 2 Statement of Response/Objections to Grimmway Facts# 3 Declaration of Moore# 4 Exhibit s to the Decl of Moore)(Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
47 JOINDER by Ana-Berta Rubio in plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment 46 35 . (Smith, William) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
48 JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT by Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.. (Brumfield, Lorna) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
49 MINUTE ORDER: (TEXT ONLY) Scheduling Conference currently set for 6/12/07 has been CONTINUED to 6/28/2007 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4(LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. (Lira, I) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
50 ANSWER to INTERVENOR COMPLAINT by Grimmway Enterprises, Inc..(Brumfield, Lorna) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
51 REPLY to RESPONSE to MOTION re 35 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT or in the alternative Summary Adjudication of Issues. (Kinney, Jay) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
52 DECLARATION of Lorna H. Brumfield in support of re 35 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT or in the alternative Summary Adjudication of Issues. Reply to Opposition (Kinney, Jay) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
53 DECLARATION of Rita C. Serda in Support of re 35 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT or in the alternative Summary Adjudication of Issues. Reply to Opposition (Kinney, Jay) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
54 REPLY to RESPONSE to MOTION re 35 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT or in the alternative Summary Adjudication of Issues. Reply to Opposition to Evidence (Kinney, Jay) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
55 DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 35 : SCHEDULING CONFERENCE currently set for 6/28/07 has been VACATED AND RESET for 8/31/07 at 8:30am. signed by Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/12/07. (Lira, I) (Entered: 06/12/2007)

6 of 7

3/17/2008 8:05 PM

Live 3.1.2 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?159284205953124-L_1...

07/20/2007 08/17/2007
09/20/2007 09/21/2007 10/24/2007 11/07/2007 11/15/2007 11/15/2007 11/19/2007

56 NOTICE by Ana-Berta Rubio. Notice of Unavailability of Counsel (Smith, William) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
57 MINUTE ORDER: (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) Scheduling Conference currently set for 831/07 has been CONTINUED to 9/26/2007 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4(LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Parties are in settlement negotiations. (Lira, I) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
58 NOTICE of SETTLEMENT by Ana-Berta Rubio.Filing due by 10/15/2007. (Smith, William) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
59 ORDER AFTER SETTLEMENT: Dismissal due by 10/22/2007 signed by Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/21/07. (Lira, I) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
60 MINUTE ORDER: Request for 2-week continuance of date for filing the dismissal is GRANTED. The Court orders that dispositive documents be submitted no later than November 7, 2007. (Lira, I) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
61 PROPOSED ORDER [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
62 Consent Decree, signed by Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/9/2007. (Scrivner, E) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
63 Consent Decree, signed by Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/15/2007. (Scrivner, E) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
64 ORDER To Administratively Close Action, signed by Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/16/2007. CASE CLOSED. (Scrivner, E) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

03/17/2008 18:05:44

wu0079 Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:06-cv-00561-LJO-DLB

5

Cost:

0.40

7 of 7

3/17/2008 8:05 PM

 
 WILLIAM R TAMAYO, SBN 084965 DAVID F. OFFEN-BROWN, SBN 063321 2 LlNDAS. ORDONIO-DIXON,SBN 172830 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 3 San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 4 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260 Telephone No. (415) 625-5654 5 Fax No. (415) 625-5657

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
7 BOB H. JOYCE, SBN 84607 LORNA BRUMFIELD, SBN 109263
8 J. NILEKINNEY,SBN 108433 LeBEAU-THELEN, LLP
9 5001 E. Cornrnercenter Drive, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93309
10 Telephone No. (661) 325-1127

NOV 1 5 2007

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT URT

EASTERN DISTRIC

C FORNfA

BY--__-m~~~~------

11 Attorneys for Defendant Grirnrnway Farms

12 DANIELK KLlNGENBERGER,SBN 131134 DOWLING, AARON & KEELER, INC.
J3 5060 California Avenue, Suite 620 Bakersfield, California 93309
14 Telephone No. (661) 716-3000
Fax: (661) 716-3005
15 Attorneys for Esparza Enterprises, Inc.
16

17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18 EASTER.!"< DISTRICT OF CALIFOR.!"<IA· FRESNO
19

20 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

21

Plaintiff,

22

v.

CIVIL ACTfON NO. 06 - 00561 LJO DLB
[f'~8Dl CONSENT DECREE

23 GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/bla GRIMMWAY FARMS;
24 ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

25

Defendants.

26 II
27
28 II
CONSENT DECREE CV-06-00561 LJO DLB

Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission" or "EEOC")

2 brought this lawsuit under Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights

3 Act of 1991, to correct alleged unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex (female) and to

4
provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Ana-Berta Rubio and other similarly situated female 5
employees who were adversely affected by such practices. 6

7

In the interest of resolving this matter the Commission, and Defendants Esparza Enterprises

8 Inc., and Grirnrnway Enterprises Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "the Parties") have agreed that the

9 above-captioned.lawsuit (the "Lawsuit") should be finally resolved by enlly of this Consent Decree.

10

This Consent Decree, being entered into with the consent of the EEOC, Grimmway Farms

II and Esparza Enterprises, shall not constitute an adjudication and/or a finding on the merits of the
12 lawsuit and shall not be construed as an admission of liability by either Grimmway Farms or Esparza
13
14 Enterprises.

15

This Consent Decree resolves all claims arising out of EEOC Charge Nos. 375-2005-00068

16 (Ana Berta Rubio vs. Grimmway Farms) and 375-2005-00416 (Ana Berta Rubio vs. Esparza

17 Enterprises, Inc.) and the Complaint in this Lawsuit, and constitutes a complete resolution of all

18 claims of discrimination under Title VII that were made or could have been made by the
19 Commission based on these charges. This Consent Decree does not, however, resolve any future
20 charges or charges that may be pending with the EEOC other than the charges and Complaint
21
22 specifically referenced in this paragraph.

23

This Consent Decree comprises the full and exclusive agreement of the Parties with respect

24 to the matters discussed herein. No waiver, modification or amendment of any provision of this

25 Consent Decree shall be effective unless made in writing and approved by all the Parties to this

26 Decree, and any substantive change, modification or amendment of any provision of this Consent
27 Decree shall also require approval by the Court.
28

CONSENT DECREE

2.

CV-06-00165

The Court has reviewed this Consent Decree in light of the pleadings, the record herein, and

2 now approves this Consent Decree,

3

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

4 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
5 This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Parties to this Lawsuit. This Court
6

7 will retain jurisdiction over this Decree for all purposes until the expiration of Defendant's

8 obligations as set forth herein,

9

This Consent Decree is final and binding upon the Parties, their agents, successors and assigns.

10 The Parties will each bear their own costs and attorney fees in this action.

II

12

n. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

13

Sex Discrimination: Consistent with Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S,C. §2000e-2, Defendants

14 and their officers, agents, managers (including supervisory employees), successors and assigns, are

15 prohibited from discriminating against persons on the basis of sex by creating, allowing or otherwise
16 supporting sexual harassment in their workforce.
17

18

Retaliation: Consistent with Section 704 ofTitle VII, 42 USC § 2000e-3, Defendants, their

19 officers, agents, managers (including supervisory employees), successors and assigns, are prohibited

20 from engaging in, implementing or permitting any action, policy or practice with the purpose of

21 retaliating against any current or former employee because he or she has in the past, or during the
22 term of this Consent Decree (a) opposed any practice of harassment or other discriminatory acts on 23
the basis of sex made unlawful under Title VII; (b) filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging any
24
such practice; (c) testified or participated in any manner in any investigation (including, without 25 26 limitation, any internal investigation undettaken by Defendant), proceeding or hearing in connection
27 with this Lawsuit; (d) was identified as a possible witness in this Lawsuit; or (e) asserted any rights

28 under this Consent Decree,

CONSENT DECREE

3,

CV'(x}'oo) 65

m. MONETARY RELIEF

2

Defendants shall pay the total Sum of $175,00.00 (One Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand

3 Dollars and No Cents) (the "Settlement Payment") as damages to Ana Berta Rubio. Each Defendant

4 shall he jointly and separately responsible for payment of the total sum; Defendants shall determine
5 between themselves the amount to be paid by each Defendant.
6

7

a. Defendants shall report the Settlement Payment by issuance of IRS Form 1099 .

8

b. Pursuant to the term of the separate settlement agreement entered into by the parties,

9 Defendants shall pay the Settlement Payment as follows:

10

Within ten (10) days of the entty of this Consent Decree, Defendants shall issue the total

11 payment made payable to Ana Berta Rubio and her attorney, William J. Smith. Defendants shall
12 make their respective payments in the form of a business check, cashier's check, or certified check.
13
c. Check(s) shall be sent via Federal Express to William 1. Smith, Law Offices of William J. 14

15

Smith, 2350 West Shaw Ave., Suite 132, Fresno, CA.

16

d. A copy of the check(s) shall he faxed to EEOC Counsel Linda Ordonio-Dixonat

17

(415)625-5657.

18 IV. SPECIFIC lNJUNCTlVE RELIEF
19 EEO and Anti-Discrimination Policies
20 Defendants shaJl revise their respective sexual harassment and complaint investigation
21
22 policies within sixty (60) days of signing the Consent Decree, such that the policies: (i) provide that

23 complaints of discrimination and/or retaliation will be accepted irrespective ofwhether they are

24 made verbally or in writing; and (ii) indicate that, promptly upon the conclusion of the investigation

25 of a complaint, the company will communicate to the complaining party the results of the

26 investigation and the remedial actions taken or proposed, if any. The revised policies shall be

27 submitted to the Commission for review to ensure that the terms above have been met
28

CONSENT DECREE

4.

CV-06-00165

After the Commission has reviewed and approved the policies, Defendant shall effectively

2 disseminate their revised policies and procedures by:

3

i. Distributing copies to all current employees within 30 days after the

4 Conunission's approval of the policies;
5
ii. Distributing copies along with employee paychecks to all employees 6

7 one year after the distribution indicated, above;

8

iii. Giving a copy to all new employees at all locations upon the

9 employees' bire.

10

Posting.

11
Tbe "Notice to all Employees" which is attached to this Consent Decree shall be posted and
12 remain posted in a clearly visible location frequented by employees for the teIID oftbe Consent
13
Decree.
14

15

Training of Employees.

16

Once a year for the next two years, Defendants sball provide an explanation of Defendant's

17 anti-discrimination policies in an employee safety meeting or other employee meeting to all

18 employees and contract workers. The information provided at the meetings shall provide

19 participants with an understanding of the company's policies, prohibitions regarding retaliation and
20 the company's complaint discrimination procedures.
21

22

Defendants shall provide sexual harassment training to all supervisors as required by

23 California AB 1825. This training shall provide participants with an understanding of discrimination

24 issues, particularly sexual harassment, sources oflegal protection for discrimination victims, the

25 employees' obligation to report sex discrimination, the employer's obligation to take preventive,

26 investigative and remedial action with respect to discrimination complaints, and to review company
27 policies (including discipline policies) and practices related to discrimination and retaliation with
28

CONSENT DECREE

5.

CV-06-00165

employees.

2

AcknowledgmentofDissemjnatjon of Policjes and Tralninl! Attendance.

3

All persons attending mandatory anti-discrimination training pursuant to this Consent Decree

4 shall sign an acknowledgment oftheir attendance at the training. Defendants shall retain the
5
originals of these acknowledgments and the EEOC may inspect the acknowledgements. 6

7

Renorts to the Commission

8

Defendants will provide verification in the form ofa yearly statement to the EEOC for two

9 years, in the fonn of a signed verification by a company official attesting that all requirements under

10 the Consent Decree have been met for that year.
II Policies Designed to Promote Supervisor Accountability
12 Defendants agree that they shall impose appropriate discipline, up to and including
13 termination, suspension without payor demotion, upon any supervisor or manager who engages in
14
15 sexual harassment or retaliation or knowingly permits any such conduct to occur in his or her work

16 area or among employees under his or her supervision, or who retaliates against any person who

17 complains or participates in any investigation or proceeding concerning such conduct. Defendants

18 shall communicate this policy to all of their supervisors and managers. 19

20
V. 21
22

RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND EXPIRATION OF CONSENT DECREE
a. This Conscnt Decree shall terminatc two (2) years from the date of entry by the

23 Court, unless the Commission petitions this Court for an extension of the Decree because of non-

24 compliance by either Defendant. If the Commission determines that any Defcndant has not

25 complied with the Consent Decree, the Commission will provide written notification of the alleged

26 breach to said Defendant and will not pctition the Court for enforcement sooner than thirty (30) days
27 after providing written notification. Thc thirty-day period following written notice shall be used by
28

CONSENT DECREE

6.

CV-06-00165

the parties for good faith efforts to resolve the issue. If the Commission petitions the Court and the

2 Court finds one or both Defendant(s) be in substantial violation of the terms of the Decree, the Court
3 may extend this Consent Decree, but only as to the Defendant(s) that the Court finds to be in
4 substantial violation.
5 b. Except as provided in the preceding paragraph, two (2) years after the entry of this
6
7 Consent Decree, this lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, provided that Defendants bave

8 complied substantially with the terms of this Consent Decree. Defendants will be deemed to have

9 complied substantially if the Court has not made any findings or orders during the term of the

10 Decree that Defendants have failed to comply with any of the terms of this Decree. This Consent
II Decree will automatically expire without further Court Order.
12 c. For purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Consent Decree, and pursuant to
13
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375,381-82 (1994) and Flanagan v. Amaiz,
14
15 143 F.3d 540, 543-44 (9th Cir. 1998), this Court will retain jurisdiction of the instant lawsuit until the

16 expiration of the Consent Decree.

17 Dated: November 6,2007
18

19 20 Dated: November 6, 2007 21

*",-~j ~-, ~-----
DAY OFf'EN.:sROWN

22 Dated: November6,2007 23
24 Dated: November 6, 2007
25
. 26 27 Dated: November 6, 2007
28
CONSENT DECREE CV-06-00165

L DA S. ORDONIO-DIXON For Plaintiff EEOC
LORNA BRUMFIELD For Defendant Grimrnway Enterprises, Inc.
DANIEL K. KLINGENBERGER For Defendant Esparza Enterprises
7.

Sent By: LeBeau-Thelen, LLP;

661-325-1127;

Nov-7-07 10:03AM;

Page 8/10

the parties for good faith efforts to resolve the issu~. If the Commission p~titions the Coult and tlie

2 Coun finds one or both Dcfcndant{s) be in substBllti.1 violation ofthc larms of the I)ecree, thc Court
3 may extend !hi; Consent Decree, but only a. to the I1cfcndant(s) that tlie Court findsto be jn 4
~ub"uw\iHI viulatiun. 5
b. Except as provided in the preceding paragraph. two (2) ycar~ after the entry of this
6 7 Consent Dee"ee, this lawsuit will be disllliss,,~ with prcjuuice, provided Ibal Defendants have
8 complied substantially with the tcnns oflbi! Consent Decree. DefcndlIOlS will be <Ictlmcd to have

<) complied 8ub~tantially ifthe Court has not made any findings or orders during the term ofthc

10 Decree that Defendants have failed to comply with any of the terms of this Decree. This Consent
II Decr~. will ulltomuticully expire without further Court Order.
J2
c. For purposes of enfOrcing the provisions of thi~ Consent Decree, and pursuant to 13
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Cu. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375, 381·82 (1994) and Flanagan v. Arnalz.
14
15 143 F.3d 540, 543-44 (9,\0 Cif. 1998), this Court will retain jurisdiction of thc instant lawsuit until the

16 expiration of the Consent Decree.

17 Dated: November 6,2007
18
19 20 Dated: November 6, 2007
21

--_.-
WILLIAM R. TAMAYO For Plaintiff' EEOC
--7.0:-:A~V~ID:-;F;:-.OFFEN-BROW'N--'For PlainlirrEEOC

22 Dated: November 6,2007 23
24 Dated: November 6,2007
25
26
27 Dated: November 6,2007
28
CONSENT DIICllt;..: CV-06-00165

LINDA S. ORDONlO-DIXON
~AB~~L For PlaintiffEIlOC ~ For Dclcndant GriJnmway Enterprises, Inc.
DANIEL K.KLINGENBERUER
For Derelluanl ESp'Wlll EnlCrpriscs 7.

NOV-07-07 OB:41 FROM-Hogan i Kl in,anbu,", P.C.

661-718-3005

T-BBO P.00B/OI0 F-604

1 the parties for good faith effons to resolve the issue. Ifthe Commission peritions the ClJJ[t lI1d the

2 Court fmds one or both Defendant(s) be in substantial violation oflhe tem. of the Decree, Ihe Court
3 uay extend this Consent Decree, but only as to the Defendant(s} Ihat the Court fUlds to be in 4
substantial violation. 5
b. Except as provided in the preceding paragraph, twD (2) years after the entry of this 6 7 Consent Decree, this lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, provided that Defendants have
8 complied substantially Wih the terms of this Consent Decree. Defendants will be deemed to have

9 complied substantially ifthc Court has not made any fUldings or orders during the term of the

10 Decree that Defendants have failed to comply with any of the terms of this Decree. This Consent
11 Decree will automatically expire without further Court Order.
12
c. For purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Consent Decree, and pursuant to
13 KokkDne1l v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (l994) and Flanagan Y. Arnaiz,
14
15 143 P.3d 540, 543-44 (9th Cir. 1998), this Court will retain jurisdiction ofthc instant lawsuit until the

16 expiration of the Consent Decree.

17 Dated: November 6,2007
18
19 20 Dated: November 6,2007
21
22 I Dated: November 6, 2007
23
24 Dated: November 6,2007
25
26 27 Dared: November6,2007
I28 CONSENT DECREE CV-06-00165

WTLLIAMR. TAMAYO For PlaintiffEEOC
DAVID F. OFFEN-BROWN For Plalntlff' EEOC
LINDA S. ORDONlO-DIXON For Plaintiff EEOC
LORNA BRUMFIELD For Defendant Orimmway Enterprises, Inc.
Qm.eJ~o~
For Defendant Esparza Enterprises
7.

I IT IS SO ORDERED:
2

3 Dated: 1]!N IS; zCO 7
4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT DECREE

8.

CV-06-0016S

· '

EXHIBIT A

2

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

3

This Notice is being posted to resolve the federal lawsuit Equal Employment Opportunity

4 Commission!Ana Berta Rubio vs. Grimmway FarmslEsparza Enterprises, Civil Action 06- 00561 LJO DLB (Eastern District of California).

5

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or 1964,42 U.S.c. Section 2000e-2(b), et seq., as amended, 6 (Title VII"), makes it unlawful for an employer to subject an employee to sexual harassment or to

7

otherwise discriminate against any individual because of his or her race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail

8 themselves of the rights under Title VII by engaging in protected activities such as filing a charge of discrimination and/or testifying or participating in a Commission investigation. The EEOC is the

9 federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination. The EEOC has

the authority to bring lawsuits in federal court to enforce Title VII. 10

II

If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at 1-800-

669-4000. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.

12 THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED OR REMOVED BY
13 ANYONE

14

This notice must remain posted for two years from the date below and must not be altered,

15 defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to Maricela Medina, (408) 291-7354.

16

17 By Court Order dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT DECREE

9.

CV-06-00\65