Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 11 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Plaintiff, v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc.
Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:06CV56

§

§

§

§

JURY

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

This is an action under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to restrain the unlawful payment of wages to

employees of one sex at rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex, and to

provide appropriate relief due to employees as a result of such unlawful practices. The

Commission alleges that Lowe’s has paid female employees in the positions of Customer Service

Associate, Team Leader, and Department Manager at wage rates which are less than the rates

paid to its male employees performing substantially equal work. As alleged with greater

particularity below, Carol Baudat, Carol “Joy” Bailey, and other female employees at Lowe’s

store 1790 in Livingston, Texas, were subjected to such unlawful pay practices. Additionally,

Defendant has failed to comply with applicable record-keeping laws.

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 Sections 16(c) and 17 of the

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the “FLSA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217, to

enforce the requirements of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, codified as Section 6(d) of the FLSA, 29

1

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 11 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 2 of 8
U.S.C. § 206(d), and 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 VII”). This action is also authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 102 of Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful have been committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin 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 the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 16(c) and 17 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217, as amended by Section 1 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705; and by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. (“Lowe’s”), has continuously been a North Carolina corporation doing business in the State of Texas and the City of Livingston, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Lowe’s 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). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Lowe’s has acted directly or indirectly as an employer in relation to employees and has continuously been an employer within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Lowe’s has continuously employed employees
2

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 11 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 3 of 8
engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(b), (i) and (j) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), (i) and (j) and has continuously been an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(r) and (s) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and (s), in that said enterprise has continuously been an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000.
STATEMENT OF TITLE VII CLAIMS 8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Carol Baudat filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Lowe’s. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 9. Since at least February 26, 2004, Defendant Lowe’s has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its store in Livingston, Texas, in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). 10. Carol Baudat began working for Lowe’s as a Customer Service Associate in the Paint Department of Lowe’s store in Livingston, Texas. When Lowe’s hired Paul “Paulie” Steil to work in the Paint Department in April 2004, it paid him a higher wage than it was paying Ms. Baudat. This difference in pay was because of sex. 11. Around May 1, 2004, Ms. Baudat received a promotion to Team Leader. As Team Leader, Ms. Baudat had the authority to oversee the work of Steil. Lowe’s still paid Ms. Baudat a lower wage than it paid Steil. 12. In mid-July 2004, Ms. Baudat earned a promotion to Department Manager. Lowe’s paid Ms. Baudat a lower rate than it paid any male Department Manager at that time. 13. Around the end of July 2004, Lowe’s promoted Steil to Team Leader. As
3

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 11 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 4 of 8
Department Manager, Ms. Baudat supervised Steil. Nevertheless, Lowe’s paid Ms. Baudat a lower wage than it paid Steil, an employee Ms. Baudat supervised.
14. When Carol “Joy” Bailey began as a Department Manager at Lowe’s Livingston store, she already had numerous years of experience working at Lowe’s. As a Department Manager, Lowe’s paid her at a lower rate than it paid any male Department Managers at the Livingston store.
15. The differences in wages were discriminatorily based on sex. 16. Since at least October 2004, Defendant has failed, in violation of Section 709(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c), to make and preserve records relevant to the determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed. The recordkeeping practices also violate 29 U.S.C. § 211(c). Specifically, Defendant’s inability -- as stated in its discovery responses -- to locate and produce relevant pay records and documents indicates that it has not complied with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c), 29 U.S.C. § 211(c), and applicable federal regulations. 17. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 9-15 above has been to deprive Carol Baudat, Joy Bailey, and other female Customer Service Associates, Team Leaders, and Department Managers at Lowe’s Livingston, Texas, store of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex. 18. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9-15 above were and are intentional. 19. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 10-15 above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Baudat, Ms. Bailey, and Defendant’s other female employees at the Livingston store.
4

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 11 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 5 of 8
STATEMENT OF EPA CLAIMS 20. The factual allegations in paragraphs 10-15 are incorporated in this section. 21. Since at least February 26, 2004, Defendant Lowe’s has violated Sections 6(d)(1) and 15(a)(2) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(d)(1) and 215(a)(2), by paying wages to its female Customer Service Associates, Team Leaders, and Department Managers in its Livingston, Texas, store at rates less than the rates paid to male employees in the same establishment for substantially equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. 22. As a result of the acts complained of above, Defendant Lowe’s unlawfully has withheld and is continuing to withhold the payment of wages due to Ms. Baudat, Ms. Bailey, and other females paid at rates less than the rates paid to male employees in the same establishment for substantially equal work. 23. The unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 10-15 and 21-22 above were and are willful.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Lowe’s, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in wage discrimination and in any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Lowe’s, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from discriminating within any of its establishments between employees on the basis of sex, by paying wages to
5

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 11 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 6 of 8
employees of one sex at rates less than the rates at which it pays wages to employees of the opposite sex for substantially equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.
C. Order Defendant Lowe’s to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendant Lowe’s to make whole Carol Baudat, Joy Bailey, and other women who were unlawfully underpaid by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to pay increases and frontpay for Ms. Baudat, Ms. Bailey, and other women at store 1790 who were similarly unlawfully underpaid.
E. Order Defendant Lowe’s to make whole Carol Baudat, Joy Bailey, and other women who were unlawfully underpaid by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices described in paragraphs 10-15 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Lowe’s to make whole Ms. Baudat and Ms. Bailey and other women who were unlawfully underpaid by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 10-15 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Order Defendant Lowe’s to pay Carol Baudat, Joy Bailey and other women who were unlawfully underpaid punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described
6

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 11 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 7 of 8
in paragraphs 10-15 above, in an amount to be determined at trial. H. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant Lowe’s to pay appropriate back wages in
amounts to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages [or prejudgment interest in lieu thereof] to employees whose wages are being unlawfully withheld as a result of the acts complained of above, including but not limited to Carol Baudat and Joy Bailey.
I. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
J. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission has requested a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel 1801 L. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
7

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 11 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 8 of 8
_/s/_Timothy_M._Bowne____________ Timothy M. Bowne Senior Trial Attorney Attorney-in-Charge Texas Bar No. 00793371 Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission 1919 Smith Street, 6th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 209-3395 (713) 209-3402 [facsimile] timothy.bowne@eeoc.gov
OF COUNSEL:
Jim Sacher Regional Attorney
Rose Adewale-Mendes Supervisory Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1919 Smith Street, 6th Floor Houston, Texas 77002
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed on August 22, 2006, with the Court’s ECF system, and through that system the document should be served electronically upon the following:
Frasier A. McAlpine Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 1111 Louisiana Street, 44th Floor Houston, TX 77002
_/s/_Timothy _M._Bowne_________ Timothy M. Bowne
8

 
 Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 21 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION

E.E.O.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC.

Defendant.

§ § § § Civil Action No. 9:06-CV-56 § § § JUDGE RON CLARK § § §

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before the court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. #15].
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought this lawsuit alleging that Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. (“Lowe’s”) violated the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) by unlawfully underpaying women who have worked at Lowe’s Livingston, Texas store. In addition to its Title VII and EPA claims, EEOC has claimed that Lowe’s failed to comply with applicable federal recordkeeping laws and regulations. EEOC now moves for summary judgment on its EPA claims.
I. Background In April 2004, Lowe’s opened a store in Livingston, Texas. The EEOC claims that Lowe’s has violated the EPA by unlawfully underpaying women who have worked in the following positions: Customer Service Associate (CSA), Team Leader and Department Manager. i. Customer Service Associate and Team Leader The EEOC alleges that Carol Baudat was underpaid while she was working as a CSA and Team Leader. On March 13, 2004, Baudat began working as a CSA I at $8.10/hour. Around May 1, 2004, she received a promotion to Team Leader. While Baudat was a CSA and a Team

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 21 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 2 of 8
Leader, Lowe’s paid a male associate, Paul Stein, more than it paid Baudat for their respective work. ii. Department Managers
The EEOC alleges that Baudat, Carol Bailey, Sabrina Lemons and Jenevieve Vicario, are victims of pay discrimination in their positions as Department Managers. i. Carol Baudat, Carol Bailey and Sabrina Lemons
On July 17, 2004, Baudat was promoted to Department Manager from her previous position as a Team Leader, and received an increase in her pay from $8.61 to $10.58. From July 17, 2007 to November 5, 2004, she was the lowest paid Department Manager at the store.
Bailey was working as a CSA I at Lowe’s Lufkin Store in 2004. She received a promotion to work as a Department Manager at the Livingston store starting on February 28, 2004, for $10.72 per hour. From March 1, 2004 to July 16, 2004, Bailey had a lower hourly rate of pay than any other Department Manager at the store.
In late September of 2004, both Baudat and Bailey notified Lowe’s of their concern that their compensation was lower than other Department Managers in Livingston. In October 2004, Lowe’s increased their pay to $12.02/hour, or $25,000 annually, effective on November 6, 2004. By March 12, 2005, Bailey’s pay increased from to $12.44.
Lemons was promoted to Department Manager from her previous position as a CSA III in January 2005. As a Department Manager, she received the salary of $12.52/hour. Three male employees received a higher salary than she did. iv. Jenevieve Vicario
On March 8, 2004, Vicario was hired as Department Manager with a salary of $11.539/hour, or approximately $24,021/year. Her compensation was lower than two male employees, who were hired directly into Department Manager positions.

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 21 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 3 of 8
III. Summary Judgment Standard The party moving for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 has the initial burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2514 (1986). Movant may show that the undisputed material facts affirmatively establish a right to judgment. Alternatively, movant may establish that the other party has the burden of proof at trial, and has failed to “make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to [its] case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2522 (1986). In order to avoid summary judgment, the party opposing the motion must come forward with competent summary judgment evidence of the existence of a genuine fact issue. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-86, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1335 (1986); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257, 106 S. Ct. at 2514. The nonmoving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S. Ct. at 1356. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 requires that the nonmoving party set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S. Ct. at 2514. Only a genuine dispute over a material fact (a fact which might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing substantive law) will preclude summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S. Ct. at 2510. The dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the issue. Id. If the factual context renders a claim implausible (for example if the claim simply makes no economic sense) nonmovants “must come forward with more persuasive evidence to support their claim than would otherwise be necessary.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S. Ct. at 1356. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) requires the court to look at the full record, including the pleadings,

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 21 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 4 of 8
depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits. But, the court is not going to “sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party’s opposition to summary judgment.” Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 463 (5th Cir. 1996)(citations omitted); see also Local Rule CV-56(c) and Appendix 1, ¶ 3 of the Order Governing Proceedings in this case. All reasonable inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and any doubt must be resolved in its favor. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S. Ct. at 1356. However, only reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party can be drawn from the evidence. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 468, 112 S. Ct. 2072, 2083 (1992).
III. Equal Pay Act Under the EPA, an employee is prohibited from discriminating “between employees on the basis of sex . . . for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.” 28 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)(1978). To establish a prima facie case under the EPA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that 1) her employer is subject to the EPA, 2) she performed work in a position requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility under similar working conditions; and 3) she was paid less than members of the opposite sex providing the basis for comparison. Jones v. Flagship Int’l, 793 F.2d 714, 722-23 (5th Cir. 1986).1 Defendant does not appear contest that the EEOC has established a prima facie case. Lowe’s Response to Motion [Doc. #18, p. 2]. When a plaintiff succeeds in establishing her prima facie case, the burdens of production and persuasion shift to the employer to demonstrate one of the four affirmative defenses specified
1Unlike a claim arising under Title VII, a plaintiff in an EPA case need not demonstrate discriminatory intent. Id.

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 21 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 5 of 8
under the EPA. Plemer v. Parsons-Gilbane, 713 F.2d 1127, 1136 (5th Cir. 1983).2 The EPA provides exceptions, or affirmative defenses ,for disparate wage payments made pursuant to: 1) a seniority system; 2) a merit system; 3) a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality; 4) a differential based upon any factor other than sex. Peters, 818 F.2d at 1153; 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1).
At the outset, it must be remembered that “[a]n exemption from the coverage of the Act must be narrowly construed.” Hodgson v. Behrens Drug Co., 475 F.2d 1041, 1047 (5th Cir. 1973). Nevertheless, courts recognize valid exemptions. Specifically, with regard to factors “other than sex,” several determinants must pass judicial muster, including “different job levels, different skill levels, previous training, and experience.” Pouncy v. Prudential Ins. Co., 668 F.2d 795, 802-803 (5th Cir. 1982). i. Customer Service Associate and Team Leader
The EEOC alleges that Lowe’s discriminated against Baudat because of her gender by paying her less than a male, Paul Steil, while she was a Customer Service Associate and Team Leader. In contrast to Baudat’s pay of $8.10/hour, Steil was hired as a CSA III at $9.57/hour. As evidence of its legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the pay discrepancy, Lowe’s offers the declaration of Terry Gillespie, Lowe’s Regional Human Resources Director.
Gillespie testified that Steil received a higher salary than Baudat based on Steil’s work experience and previous salary of $18.00/hour as a Foreman and Project Manager. Gillespie also states that Steil indicated a willingness to work any hours from 5:00a.m. to 2:00a.m., seven days a week. For summary judgment purposes, credibility can not be assessed so Lowe’s has provided sufficient evidence to avoid summary judgment.
2Unlike a Title VII claim, a plaintiff does not retain the ultimate burden of persuasion in an EPA case. In an EPA case, the employer, not the employee, must prove the actual wage disparity is not sex linked. Plemer, 713 F.2d at 1136.

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 21 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 6 of 8
ii. Department Managers The EEOC alleges that Lowe’s discriminated against Baudat, Bailey, Lemons and Vicario
because of their gender by paying them less than other Department Managers. In support of its arguments, the EEOC compares the pay received by Baudat, Bailey and Lemons to four male employees, Tim Bergman, Ron Bromley, David Phillips and Michael Hood, who were promoted to Department Managers. The EEOC also offers data showing that Vicario earned less than two male employees, Daniel Pope and Gaylon Dickens, who were hired directly into the Department Manager position.
Lowe’s proffers two determinants for the differences in pay: 1) Lowe’s use of a uniform Store Jobs and Pay Guide (“Pay Guide”); 2) the males’ prior work experience and salary history. Lowe’s has provided evidence that suggests all pay differentials are attributable to the nondiscriminatory application of Lowe’s pay policies embodied in its Pay Guide.
Under the Pay Guide, when Lowe’s hires or promotes an employee, it takes into account prior work experience and market demands when determining the rate of pay. The Pay Guide states the following about setting rates of pay for newly hired hourly employees:
When to place a new hire in the hourly grade / position structure should be determined based on several factors. These include:
- the applicable minimum wage rate for your state, - the open positions available, - prior Lowe’s experience, - prior retail experience, and - education level. New hires should be placed in a job commensurate with their experience and/or education. They should not be placed in the grade or position which “matches” the pay level they would like to earn. . . . New hires with prior work experience can be placed in higher graded positions. In most cases, their pay should not exceed STEP 6 of the range. The Pay Guide provides that when an hourly employee is promoted to a “Salary plus

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 21 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 7 of 8
Overtime” position, the new base pay amount would be the greater of 10% over current base pay or new range minimum. Gillespie testified that the order of progression for positions on the sales floor in a Lowe’s store is CSA I, CSA II, CSA III, CSA IV, Team Leader, Sales Specialist, Department Manager, Zone Manager, Sales Manager, Operations Manager, Store Manager.
a. Baudat, Bailey, Lemons Baudat and Lemons were both promoted from their positions as CSAs to Department Manager. The pay range for CSAs was $8.25 to $11.53. Bailey was promoted from her position as a Team Leader, and the pay range for a Team Leader is $9.07 to $12.66. In contrast, Bergman, Bromley and Phillips were promoted to Department Managers from their positions as Sales Specialists. The pay range for a Sales Specialist was from $9.60/hour to $14.39/hour. Hood was promoted from his prior position as a Delivery Driver, at which he earned $12.09/hour. Lowe’s evidence suggests that because the salaries of CSAs and Team Leaders are lower, promotions from those positions generate a lower resulting rate of pay. This justification suffices as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the discrepancy between the salaries of Baudat, Bailey and Lemons and the comparative males. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Under the [EPA], the courts and administrative agencies are not permitted to substitute their judgment for the judgment of the employer . . . who [has] established and applied a bona fide job rating system, so long as it does not discriminate against sex.” County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161, 101 S.Ct. 2242 (1981). Again, Lowe’s has provided sufficient evidence to avoid summary judgment. b. Vicario Vicario was directly hired as a Department Manager at a rate of $11.59/hour. Two of Vicario’s male comparators, Daniel Pope and Gaylon Dickens, were also employees who were

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 21 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 8 of 8
directly hired as Department Managers. Both Pope and Dickens earned $12.02/hour. Gillespie testified that Pope’s salary was higher than Vicario’s salary because Pope was a
certified heavy equipment operator, and had retail sales experience working at two car dealerships where he previously earned as much as $52,000 per year. Gillespie also testified that Dickens’s salary was higher than Vicario’s salary because Dickens has a B.B.A. in Management from the University of Houston, and prior management and sales experience.
As mentioned above, Lowe’s reliance on work experience, education and prior salary history to set the salaries of its managers qualify as legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for a pay differential. Given the applicable stringent standards, EEOC is not entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 20 day of December, 2006.
___________________________________ Ron Clark, United States District Judge

 
 Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 25 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Plaintiff, v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc.
Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:06CV56

§

§

§

§

JURY

CONSENT DECREE

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Commission” or “EEOC”) has

alleged that Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. (“Lowe’s”) violated the Equal Pay Act of

1963 (“EPA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”), by

subjecting Carol Baudat, Carol “Joy” Bailey, and other female employees at Lowe’s Store No.

1790 in Livingston, Texas, to pay practices made unlawful by these statutes.

Lowe’s has denied the EEOC’s allegations. The parties by this Consent Decree have

agreed to compromise and settle disputed claims.

Now, therefore, the parties stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Court and waive a hearing

and the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

It is therefore ORDERED that:

1. This Consent Decree is entered in full and complete settlement of any and all

claims arising out of or contained in EEOC Charge Nos. 330-2005-00402, 330-2005-05018, and

this lawsuit, Civil Action No. 9:06-cv-00056. The entry of this Decree does not deprive EEOC

or any state fair employment practices agency from investigating any other pending or future

1

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 245 Filed 02/236/2007 Page 2 of 5
EPA or Title VII claim against Lowe’s. 2. Lowe’s agrees that it will not retaliate against any individual who has provided
testimony or evidence related to this lawsuit or to the investigation of EEOC Charge Nos. 3302005-00402 and 330-2005-05018. Lowe’s also reaffirms its commitment to not paying female employees at Store No. 1790 less than male employees at that store for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, except for reasons authorized by 29 U.S.C. § 206(d).
3. During the duration of this Consent Decree, any individual who assumes the position of Store Manager of Store No. 1790 or store Human Resources Manager at Store No. 1790 shall receive training in the appropriate implementation of Lowe’s Salary Administration Plan within thirty (30) days of attaining the Store Manager or store Human Resources Manager position. Regardless of tenure in the position, the Store No. 1790 Manager and store Human Resources Manager shall receive training in the appropriate implementation of Lowe’s Salary Administration Plan at least once every twelve (12) months.
4. During the duration of this Consent Decree, Lowe’s shall create and maintain written documentation to explain Lowe’s basis for assigning a newly hired hourly employee into a specific job classification with a corresponding pay grade and to place the newly hired hourly employee into a particular pay “step” within that pay grade at the time of his or her initial hire at Store No. 1790. If Lowe’s hires an employee as a seasonal employee and does not assign that employee to a specific job classification, the documentation will specify the job classification and pay step or range that the Store Manager or Store Human Resources Manager used as a point of reference to establish the initial rate of pay for the seasonal employee. The Store Manager or Store Human Resources Manager at Store No. 1790 shall be responsible for creating and
2

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 245 Filed 02/236/2007 Page 3 of 5
maintaining this documentation. 5. Upon hire of an applicant for an hourly position at Store No. 1790, the Store
Manager or Store HR Manager will discuss with the applicant his or her experience, skills and education identified on their application that form the basis for their initial job classification and hourly wage. The Store Manager or Store HR Manager will also inform a new hire of the job title for which she has been hired, as well as the pay grade [out of seven pay grades for hourly workers], “step,” and wage rate to which she will be initially assigned. If Lowe’s hires an employee as a seasonal employee and does not assign that employee to a specific job classification, the Store Manager or Store HR Manager will also inform a new hire of the job classification and pay step or range that the Store Manager or Store HR Manager used as a point of reference to establish the initial rate of pay for the seasonal employee. The Store Manager or Store HR Manager will explain why the information provided by the applicant motivated Lowe’s choice of classification, grade, and step, and will advise new hourly employees that they will be eligible for an increased hourly wage based on performance after 90 days of employment in accordance with Lowe’s policy.
6. A newly hired hourly employee at Store No. 1790 may utilize Lowe’s Open Door Program to raise concerns regarding initial hourly wage determinations to either Lowe’s District or Regional management.
7. Should any employee at Store No. 1790 express through Lowe’s Open Door Program or submit a verbal or written complaint to any member of Lowe’s management concerning his or her wage rate or salary, the complaint or concern will be addressed in writing within twenty-one (21) days by Lowe’s management.
8. At any time during the duration of this Consent Decree, but no more than two (2)
3

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 245 Filed 02/236/2007 Page 4 of 5
times in any calendar year, the Commission may monitor Lowe’s compliance with this Decree by providing twenty (20) calendar days’ notice of its intent to inspect the documentation referenced in paragraphs 4 and 7, above. Such inspection may occur, at Lowe’s election, either by EEOC staff reviewing the original documents at the location where they are maintained, or by Lowe’s providing copies to the EEOC’s Houston District Office.
9. Lowe’s agrees to pay the total sum of forty-three thousand dollars ($43,000.00) in full and final settlement of the Commission’s lawsuit. The Commission agrees to notify each Charging Party and each of the class members who will receive a portion of the settlement proceeds of the sum to be paid to each of them upon their execution of a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims which will be sent by the Defendant to each individual.
10. Within five (5) calendar days of entry of the Consent Decree, the Commission shall notify Defendant of the sum to be paid to each Charging Party and each of the class members who will receive a portion of the settlement proceeds, and the address of each person who will receive a portion of the settlement proceeds. Said sums shall be paid within fifteen (15) days from the date of entry of the Consent Decree, or within ten (10) days after Lowe’s receives an executed release of any claims the recipient may have under either Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2000e-17, or the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), whichever later occurs. A copy of the checks disbursed to each of them shall be mailed to the Commission’s counsel of record on the same day the checks are mailed.
11. This Decree shall remain in effect for two years from the date of entry. During the period that this Decree shall remain in effect, the Court shall retain jurisdiction to assure compliance with this Decree and to permit entry of such further orders or modifications as may be appropriate. The EEOC will send written notice to Defendant of any alleged breach, and
4

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 245 Filed 02/236/2007 Page 5 of 5

provide Defendant at least ten (10) days for the opportunity to investigate and cure such breach.

Should the parties be unable to resolve such a dispute after good faith attempts, and upon

Defendant’s failure to cure any alleged breach, the EEOC is specifically authorized to seek

Court-ordered enforcement of this Decree in the event of a breach of any of the provisions

herein.

12. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees.

Hello This is a Test

23

February

So ORDERED and SIGNED this _____ day of ___________________________, 2007.

____________________________________ Ron Clark, United States District Judge

5

 
 Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 1 of 7

. ___.. _IN_TH~UNITE~S.TATE~DIS.TRICT-CQUB.T..-FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Plaintiff, v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

) )

q:Ofoev5lo

)

) )

JURY TRIAL Dl~e Clark

)

__ - - _ . . _ - - - -

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

This is an action under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to restrain the unlawful payment of wages to

employees of one sex at rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex, and to

provide appropriate relief due to employees as a result of such unlawful practices. The Commission

alleges that Lowe' s has paid female employees in the positions ofCustomer Service Associate, Team

Leader, and Department Manager at wage rates which are less than the rates paid to its male

employees performing substantially equal work. As alleged with greater particularity below, Carol

Baudat and Carol "Joy" Bailey were subjected to such unlawful pay practices.

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 Sections 16(c) and 17 of the Fair

Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA"), as amended, 29 U.S.c. §§ 216(c) and 217, to enforce

the requirements of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, codified as Section 6(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §

1

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 2 of 7
---------~0eE~},_and-pul"suant-t0-g€cti()n-10e~t')p-)_and-t_3-)_()£-l'itle-V'II-()j;'the-CL\liLRights-AcLoL19M~as-- _ _ _ _. _: amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) ("Title VII"). This action is also authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 102 of Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful have been committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin 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 the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections l6(c) and 17 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.c. §§ 2l6(c) and 217, as amended by Section 1 of Reorganization Plan No.1 ofl978, 92 Stat. 3781, and Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705; and by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(1)and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. ("Lowe's"), has continuously been a North Carolina corporation doing business in the State of Texas and the City of Lufkin, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Lowe's has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70l(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant Lowe's has acted directly or indirectly as an employer in relation to employees and has continuously been an employer within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.c. § 203(d).
7. At all relevant times, Defendant Lowe's has continuously employed employees
2

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 3 of 7
----------engageEi-in-cGmmeFGe-GI-in-th€-pmductiGn-(}f-g(}(}ds-fm-c(}=erce-within-the-meaning-oLSection"s_ _ __ 3(b), (i) and (j) ofthe FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), (i) and (j) and has continuously been an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(r) and (s) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and (s), in that said enterprise has continuously been an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000. STATEMENT OF TITLE VII CLAIMS 8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Carol Baudat filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Lowe's. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 9. Since at least February 26, 2004, Defendant Lowe's has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its store in Livingston, Texas, in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). 10. Carol Baudat began working for Lowe's as a Customer Service Associate in the Paint Department of Lowe's store in Livingston, Texas. When Lowe's hired Paul "Paulie" Steil to work in the Paint Department in April 2004, it paid him a higher wage than it was paying Ms. Baudat. This difference in pay was because of sex. 11. Around May 1, 2004, Ms. Baudat received a promotion to Team Leader. As Team Leader, Ms. Baudat had the authority to oversee the work of Steil. Lowe's still paid Ms. Baudat a lower wage than it paid Steil. 12. In mid-July 2004, Ms. Baudat earned a promotion to Department Manager. Lowe's paid Ms. Baudat a lower rate than it paid any male Department Manager at that time. 13. Around the end ofJuly 2004, Lowe's promoted Steil to Team Leader. As Department
3

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 4 of 7
----------Manag~~,M&-gaudat-sup~r-\lis~d-St~ih-N~\l~rth~1€'SS,_1~we's-paid-M&--gaudat-a-l~w~I'-wag~thanl----­
it paid Steil, an employee Ms. Baudat supervised. 14. When Carol "Joy" Bailey began as a Department Manager at Lowe's Livingston store,
Lowe's paid her [like Ms. BaudatJ at a lower rate than it paid male Department Managers. IS. The differences in wages were discriminatorily based on sex. 16. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 9-IS above has been to
deprive Carol Baudat and Joy Bailey of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex.
17. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9-IS above were and are intentional.
18. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs IO-IS above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Baudat, Ms. Bailey and Defendant's other female store employees.
19. Since at least February 26, 2004, Defendant Lowe's has violated Sections 6(d)(I ) and IS(a)(2) oftheFLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(d)(I) and2IS(a)(2), by paying wages to its female Customer Service Associates, Team Leaders, and Department Managers in its Livingston, Texas, store at rates less than the rates paid to male employees in the same establishment for substantially equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are perfonned under similar working conditions.
20. As a result of the acts complained of above, Defendant Lowe's unlawfully has withheld and is continuing to withhold the payment of wages due to Ms. Baudat, Ms. Bailey, and other females paid at rates less than the rates paid to male employees in the same establishment for
4

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 5 of 7
--------------&ub-stantial1Y-~qua1-wmk~.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21. The unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 10-14 and 19-20 above were and
are willful. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Lowe's, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in wage discrimination and in any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Lowe's, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from discriminating within any of its establishments between employees on the basis of sex, by paying wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates at which it pays wages to employees ofthe opposite sex for substantially equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. D. Order Defendant Lowe's to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. E. Order Defendant Lowe's to make whole Carol Baudat and Joy Bailey by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to pay increases and frontpay for Ms. Baudat and Ms. Bailey. F. Order Defendant Lowe's to make whole Carol Baudat and Joy Bailey by providing
5

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 6 of 7
---G(}IIlJlensati(}n-fm-]}ast-and-futm€-]}€cuniaB'-loss€s-f€sulting-llgm-th€-uillawful-pIactices-describedin paragraphs 10-15 above, in amounts to be dete=ined at trial. G. Order Defendant Lowe's to make whole Ms. Baudat and Ms. Bailey by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 10-15 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be dete=ined at trial. H. Order Defendant Lowe's to pay Carol Baudat and Joy Bailey punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described in paragraphs 10-15 above, in an amount to be dete=ined at trial. 1. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant Lowe's to pay appropriate back wages in amounts to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages [or prejudgment interest in lieu thereof] to employees whose wages are being unlawfully withheld as a result of the acts complained of above, including but not limited to Carol Baudat and Joy Bailey. J. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest. K. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
6

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC

- - ------- -- -- - - -- ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 7 of 7

mR-),-l'MAb-DBMANB
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel 1801 L. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
~~ ~r:3..~ Timothy M~~e L
Senior Trial Attorney Attorney-in-Charge Texas Bar No. 00793371 Southern Dist. of Texas No. 20023 Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission 1919 Smith Street, 7th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 209-3395 (713) 209-3402 [facsimile] timothy.bowne@eeoc.gov
OF COUNSEL:
Jim Sacher Regional Attorney
Rose Adewale-Mendes Supervisory Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1919 Smith Street, 7th Floor Houston, Texas 77002
7

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?235643279156125-L_9...

U.S. District Court [LIVE] Eastern District of TEXAS LIVE (Lufkin) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:06-cv-00056-RHC

CLOSED, JURY

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc Assigned to: Judge Ron Clark Cause: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

Date Filed: 02/28/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Timothy M Bowne US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1919 Smith St 7th Floor Houston, TX 77002 713/209-3395 Fax: 17132093402 Email: timothy.bowne@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathy D Boutchee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1919 Smith Street 7th Floor Houston, TX 77002 713/209-3405 Fax: 17132093402 Email: kathy.boutchee@eeoc.gov

V. Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, Inc

represented by Fraser A McAlpine Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 1111 Louisiana Street 44th Floor Houston, TX 77002 713/220-8129 Fax: 17132360822 Email: fmcalpine@akingump.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 4

6/13/2007 1:44 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?235643279156125-L_9...

Date Filed 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/29/2006 04/11/2006
05/11/2006 05/12/2006 05/15/2006 05/16/2006 05/17/2006
08/22/2006 08/29/2006
09/01/2006 09/01/2006

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (Title VII) against Lowe's Home Centers, Inc , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(djh, ) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
Filing fee waived (djh, ) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
2 Magistrate Consent Form E-med to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission atty of record (djh, ) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
3 ANSWER to Complaint by Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.(McAlpine, Fraser) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
4 ORDER governing proceedings. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 3/30/06. (djh, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
5 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Lowe's Home Centers, Inc identifying Lowe's Companies, Inc. as Corporate Parent. (McAlpine, Fraser) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
6 NOTICE of Disclosure by Lowe's Home Centers, Inc (McAlpine, Fraser) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
7 NOTICE of Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
8 NOTICE of Disclosure by Lowe's Home Centers, Inc (Amended Disclosures) (McAlpine, Fraser) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
9 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Scheduling and Docket Control Order)(McAlpine, Fraser) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
10 SCHEDULING ORDER setting case specific deadlines, including docket call and final pretrial at 1:30 pm on 3/5/07. Date parties should be prepared to try case is 3/5/07. Jury selection set for 9:00 am on 3/14/07. The case management conference scheduled for 5/30/06 is cancelled. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 5/17/06. (kjr, ) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
11 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Lowe's Home Centers, Inc, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
12 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions & Extend Discovery Deadline by Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McAlpine, Fraser) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
13 Amended ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.(McAlpine, Fraser) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
14 ORDER granting 12 Motion TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER. The Scheduling Order is modified as follows: Deadline for motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment or other dispositive motions is 11/5/06; all discovery shall be commenced to be completed by 12/15/06. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 9/1/06. (kjr, ) (Entered: 09/05/2006)

2 of 4

6/13/2007 1:44 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?235643279156125-L_9...

11/06/2006
11/17/2006
11/17/2006 11/29/2006 12/06/2006 12/13/2006
12/20/2006 01/30/2007
02/09/2007 02/23/2007 02/26/2007

15 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 11/20/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Text of Proposed Order)(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
16 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment)(McAlpine, Fraser) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
17 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to motion for summary judgment until 11/29/06. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 11/17/06. (djh, ) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
18 RESPONSE to Motion re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit TerryGillespie# 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(McAlpine, Fraser) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
19 REPLY to Response to Motion re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Gillespie deposition# 2 Exhibit # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 Exhibit)(Boutchee, Kathy) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
20 RESPONSE to Motion re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment Sur-Reply filed by Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2004 Store Jobs and Pay Guide# 2 Exhibit Supplemental Declaration of Terry Gillespie# 3 Exhibit Exhibit AA# 4 Exhibit Exhibit BB# 5 Exhibit Exhibit CC# 6 Exhibit Exhibit DD)(McAlpine, Fraser) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
21 ORDER denying 15 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment . Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 12/20/06. (kjr, ) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
22 ORDER that by February 9, 2007, at 4:00 p.m., the parties shall each submit to the court an estimate of the time that party needs to complete the presentation of testimony in this case. The required statements should not be filed with the clerk, but should be submitted only to the court.. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 1/30/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
23 ORDER ON CLOSING DOCUMENTS. All parties or their counsel shall submit to the court all papers necessary for the closing of this case and its removal from the active docket of this court on or before 2/23/ 2007 . Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 2/9/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
24 Joint MOTION for Settlement Entry of Consent Decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order proposed Consent Decree)(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
25 CONSENT DECREE. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney's fees. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 2/23/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 02/26/2007)

3 of 4

6/13/2007 1:44 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?235643279156125-L_9...

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/13/2007 13:45:59

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

9:06-cv-00056-RHC

Billable Pages:

2

Cost: 0.16

4 of 4

6/13/2007 1:44 PM