L

-'

•

A. LUIS LUCERO, JR" REGIONAL ATTORNEY

JOHN F, STANLEY, ACTING SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104

OR\G1NAL

TEL: (206) 220-6896

FAX: (206) 220-6911

John.StanicyCiilccoc.gov

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

lJNlTEU STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE UlSTRICT OF IDAHO

)

EQUAl, EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

elva 3 - a6 5 - S- MHW

COMMISSION,

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

Plaintiff.

) COMPLAINT

)

v.

) JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC.

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Titk VII of the Civil Rights Act or 1964 and Title I ofthc Civil

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawfiil employment practic~s on the basis of scx and to provid~

appropriate rclicfto Sandra Robison and similarly situatedf~male applicants. The Equ,tJ

Employmcnt Opportunity Commission alleges that defendant Amcripride Services, Inc.

COMPLAINT - Page I

U.S. EQUAL EMPI.OYMENT OPPOOTUNITY COMMISSION 5&attle [)i.!ltri~t Office
909' Fll'st AW.hue:, Suite. 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-68S3 F-QI;.simile: (206) 220-6911 TOD; (206) 220-6882
\ .

• •

discriminated against Ms. Robison. and similarly situated female applicants, when it failed to hire these women for employment hecausc of their gcnder. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief, including pecuniary and nonpecuniary compensatory damages and punitive damages, on behalf of Ms. Robison and similarly situated female applicants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE I. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§45 I, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(1)(1) and (3) of Title VlI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. sedions 2000e-5(1)(1) and (3) ("Title VlI"), and Scetion 102 of the Civil Rights Act of1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District ofIdaho.
PARTlES 3. Plaintift~ the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with tbe administration, interpretation and enforcement orTille VIT, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(t)(I) of Title VII, 42 U.Se. §2000e-5(f)(I). 4. At all relevant times, defendant, Ameripride Services, Inc. ("Ameripride" or "defendant") has been a corporation continuously doing business in the State of Idaho and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, defendant Ameripride has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry afTecting commerce within the meaning ol'Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of

COMPLAINT - Page 2

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMIsSION
Scotti. Oi!ltl"'ict Offlel!o 909 Fi~!lt A\fl!:hu~. Suite. 400 5eo.ttle, Waghington 98104-1061 T~I2.pha~. (206) 220-6683
FQcsimile.~ (206) 220-6911 'rDb: (206) 220-6sa~

,.

•

•

Title VII, 42 U.S.c. §~2000c-(b). (g) and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Sandra Robison filed

a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by defendant Ameripride. All

conditions preeedentto the institution of thi s lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7. Beginning on or before November 5, 200 I, defendant Ameripride engaged in

unlawful employment practices at its Twin Falls, Idaho facility in violation of §§ 703(a) of Title

VII. 42 U.S.c. §§ 2000c-2(a). The practices include the failure to hire Ms. Robison, and other

similarly situated female applicants, Jor employment because of their gender.

8. The cffcct of the practiccs complained of in panlgraph 7 above has been to deprive

Ms. Robison, and similarly situated female applicants, of equal cmploymcnt opportunities by

discriminating against them hecause of their gender.

9. The unlawful employmcnt practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were

intentional.

10. The unlawful cmployment practices complained of in paragraph 7 abovc were

done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Robison

and similarly situated female applicants.

PRAYER FOR RELI EF

Wherefore, the Commission respectJi.Llly requests that this Court:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, agents,

assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any

employment practices which discriminate on the bases of sex.

COMPLAINT - Page 3

U.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTI!NITY COMMISSION
SeGt1'le. blstri,t Office 909 FirsT AV2nu~. $lJit~ 400
SI!;a.ttl!!, WashlhgtOh 9al04-1061 Te.lephone: (206) 220-6BB3 FO(;$imile: (~06) 220-6911
me;.: (206) 2/!O-6BB?

• •
B. Order deiendantto institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order defendant to make whole Ms. Robison and similarly situated female applicants by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawlill employment practices.
D. Order defendant to make whole Ms. Robison and similarly situated female applicants by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including past and future out-ofpocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order defendant to make whole Ms. Robison and similarly situated female applicants by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting lr0111 the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above. including without limitation emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment orlile, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order defendant to pay Ms. Robison and similarly situated female applicants punitive damages for its malicious and reck less conduct described in paragraph 7 above. in amounts to be dctennined at triaL
O. Grant such Ihrther relief' as lhe Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs or this action. II

COMPLAINT - Page 4

U.S. EqUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
SlI!o'ttllll t)J.S'trle't Office 909 Fir~t Avenue:, Suite: 4-DO
SE<attlE<. Wcshl~9tOM 98104-1061 TelephonE:: (206) 220-6683 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TOO: 01:06) 220-68132

• • JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. R~gional Attorney
JOHN F. STANLEY
Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney

,2003.
C;WENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

COMMISSION

Seattle District Office

Office of the General Counsel

909 First Avenue, Suite 400

1801 "L" Street, N.W.

Seattle, Washington 98104

Washington, D. C. 20507

Telephone (206) 220-6!l96

Facsimile (206) 220-6911

Attorneys for Plaintiff

COMPLAINT - Page 5

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTVNITY COMMISSION SlIottl!! Oi:strle' Office 909 fir~ AvefllJe, .suite 400
Seattle., Wa'shington 9ijl0oll-t061 Te:le.phohr:: (206) 220-6883 Facslmilt!:: (206) 2z0-69u TDD: (~06) 220-6882.

 
 •

•

«z.....J
--0::::
a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMTSSION,
Plaintiff, vs. AMERIPRTDE SERVICES INC.,
Defendant. SANDRA ROBISON,
Plaintiff/Intervenor.

Civil No. 03~065-S-BLW PROTECTIVE ORDER

Pursuanl to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is he£eby
l ORDERED Do cJ.,.,.u /Jo . \ ':>) ,
1. That this Protective O£der shall govern the designation, disclosure and usc ofprotected information by the parties in this action.
2. In this Protective Order the term "protected information" shall mean information designated as protected by a paJ"ly pursuant to this Protective Order. Information so designated may be all or part of a document or thing, testimony, interrogatory answer, admission, or other form of evidence or discovery.
3. A party may designate as protected informalion any information or thing that said party believes in good faith constitutes or embodies information used by it in or pertaining to its business or information which is of a personal nature that is not generally known

PROTECTTVE ORDER - 1

• •
and which the designating party would not nomlally reveal to third parties or would cause third parties to maintain in confidence.
4. Protected information shall be designated by the following procedmc: (a) When a document to be produced for inspection contains protected information, the producing party shall notify the inspecting party. A document produced for inspection for which such notice has been given shall be inspected only by persons authorized in accordance with paragraph 7 of this Protective Order. (b) When a requesting party sccks a copy of a document, the producing party shall designate the copy as containing protected infonnation by stamping thc first page of the copy and each page of the copy that contains such information. (c) When deposition testimony contains protected information, any attorney of record authorizcd pursuant to paragraph 7 herein may designate said testimony as containing protected infonnation by notifying others present at thc deposition. The court reporter shall then mark each page ofthe transcript that contains protected information. If no such designation is made at the timc the deposition is taken the transcripts and cxhibits shall not be deemed to contain protected information. (d) When a response to an interrogatory or request for admission contains proteeted infonnation, the response shall be designated as such by stamping the first page of the document and those additional pages containing protected infonnation. 5. Any protcctcd information or any document incorporating protected information that is filed or lodged with the Court shall be marked on the first page, sealed, and delivered to the Clerk of the Court, and shall not be available for public inspection. The
PR01ECTNE ORDER - 2

•

•

envelope used to seal such information or document shall carry an appropriate notation

substantially similar to:

CONFIDENTIAL
The contents of this envelope are subject to a PROTECTNE ORDER issued by the COURT
and may not be opened, examined or copied except in compliance with that Order.

United States District Court District ofIdaho
Sandra Robison and EEOC v. AmeriPride Services, Inc. Civil Action No. 03-065-S-BLW

The Clerk shall maintain such information or document under seal, except that any judge or magistrate exercising responsibility in this action, and their legal, administrative, secretarial or clerical staffs, shall have access to documents under seal as necessary in adjudicating or administering this action.
6. Protected infornlation shall be stamped pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Protective Order by the placement of an appropriate stanlp, sticker or other indicia of substantially the following form:
PROTECTED INFORMAnON OF [insert name of party]. Disclosure subject to Court ordcred Protective Order in EEOC v. AmeriPride Services, Inc. Civil No. 03-065-S-BLW, Sandra Robison and United Statcs District Court, District ofTdaho. 7. Protected information may be disclosed only to: (a) Any attorney representing a party in this action, who has read this Protective Order, and agrees to be bound by it, and has signed the acknowledgment attachcd hereto as Appendix A, and any other person assisting such an attorney, employed by the same

PROTECTNE ORDER - 3

601_MT2:513455.4

• •
law firm or organization as the attorney, and for whom access to confidential infomlation is necessary to perform a duty with respect to this action. The execution or this Protective Order by any member of a law firm or organization shall constitute a representation that all persons in or employed hy that firm shall observe this Protective Order.
(h) Any expert or consultant qualified to have access to protected information as provided in paragraph 8 of this Protective Order.
(c) Any personnel of the Court and court reporters retained to record and transcribe testimony in this action.
(d) Any employee of the party that produced the protected infom1ation. (c) Any person who authored or received the protected information prior to its designation in this action as protected information. (I) Any person, if the protected information is publicly disclosed by the party that designated the protected information. (g) Personnel of photocopy Ilrms and/or graphics firms who subscribe to and agree to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order and who have executed an acknowledgment form similar to Appendix A hereto. Only documents needed to be copied will be provided to said individuals. 8. Either party may designate expetts or consultants, who are not regular employees of either party, and who may have access to protected in formation. An expert or consultant shall qualify for accesS to such information as follows:
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 4

• •
(a) The party seeking to disclose protected infomlation shall first have said expert or consultant complete and sign an acknow ledgnlCnt fonn, shown as Appendix B to this Protcctive Order.
(b) When a corporation or other organization is engaged as an expcrt or consultant by a party or its counsel of record, said corporation or organization may become qualified to review protected infonnation under this Protective Order only upon the qualification of each natural person within such organization or corporation who has access to protected infonnation.
9. Either party may only introduce protected information into evidence or otherwise disclose such infomlation in open Court proceedings upon consent of the designating
party or permission 0 r the Court.
10. The substance or contents of any protected information, as well as any notes, abstracts, copies, summaries and memoranda relating thereto, shall not be disclosed to or accessible by anyone other than a person qualified to obtain protected infoIDlation pursuant to this Protective Order.
11. All materials produced in discovery, including but not limited to protected infonnation, shall be used solely in preparation for trial and/or appeal of this action, and shall not be used or disclosed at any other time or for any other purpose whatsoever.
12. It shall be the duty and responsibility of counsel ofrecord to ensure that documents or things containing protected infonnation subject to counsel's control shall at all times be kept in a safe and secure fashion to ensure that such infonnation is not disclosed to or made accessible to persons other than those specifically authorized to review protected
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 5

• •
information under this Protective Order. Counsel ofrecord shall be directly responsible to the court for fulfilling this responsibility.
13. The inadvertent or unintended disclosure by a party of protected information shall not be deemed a waiver in whole or in part of a subsequent claim of protection under this Protective Order, either as to the specific infomlation disclosed or as to any other such information, provided that the inadvertent or unintended disclosure is promptly identified by the disclosing party and notice of the claim of protection is given to the other party.
14. A party shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of any designation of protected information at the time of designation, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge to the designation. If a party objects to any designation of such information the parties shall first try to resolve such dispute in good faith on an informal basis. If the dispute caunot be resolved informally, the designating party may seek appropriate relief from this Court.
15. Within thirty (30) days alter the temlination ofthis action, upon written request by the designating party, the originals and all copies of protected in formation shall be destroyed or returned to the party that produced such information, or to its attorney, except that one copy of such information appended to pleadings and one copy of ea<;h deposition transcript containing such information may be retained in the files of each attorney. Any information so retained shall be maintained pursuant to this Protective Order, and by retaining the infonnation each attorney agrees to the continuing jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of enforcing this Protective Order. The designating party that seeks the return or destruction of protected
PROTECTNE ORDER - 6

• •
inf01Tl1ation shall be responsible for reimbursing the other party for the actual costs incurred in destroying or returning the protected information.
16. Should any party, or person qualified to obtain protected info1Tl1ation hereunder, or their agents or representatives, receive any request for information, whether through fonnal compulsory process or lawful authority of the court or otherwise, prior to responding thereto, such person or counsel shall promptly serve written notice of receipt of same on counsel for all parties hereto in order to allow said party or parties to move an appropriate court or tribunal for a ruling respecting the necessity of compliance therewith. Absent a ruling from the appropriate court or tribunal on said molion, the person or party receiving the aforesaid request for information or compulsory process shall not produce in response thereto and shall thereafter do so only insofar as the court or tribunal may direct.
17. Upon final termination of this action, whether by seltlement, dismissal or other disposition, the provisions of this Protective Order shall continue to be binding upon all persons or entities who are subject to the terms hereof, and the court shall retain jurisdiction for enforcement of this order.
18. Either party may seek additional protection or disclosure with respect to protected information as that party may consider appropriale.
PROTECTiVE ORDER - 7

• •
19. Either party may request the modilication of this Protective Order upon a
showing of good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 171~ay Of~' 2003.
~_I__ N~MI...L~ ~(1)._ ATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PROTECTNE ORDER - 8

BOI_MT2:513455A

• •
APPENDlXA
UNITED STATES DISTRiCT COURT
FOR THE DTSTRiCT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNiTY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, vs. AMERlPRIDE SERViCES INC.,
Defendant. SANDRA ROBISON,
Plaintiff/Intervenor.

Ciyil No. 03-065-S-BLW

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

I,

, [nanle of person signing purslLant to

paragraph 8 of the Protectivc Order in this action], a(n)

[attorncy,

graphics consultant or photocopier) employed by

_~_ [name of

employing party], acknowledge that I have rcad the Protective Order entered in this action and

agree to be bound by its temlS. I submit to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of

enforcement of the Protective Order.

DATED this _ _ day of~_ _ _ _ _ , 2003.

PROTECTIVE ORDER - 9

• •
APPENDlXB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DlSTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNTTY COMMISSION,

Civil No. 03-065-S-BLW

Plaintiff,

vs.

AMERIPRIDE SERVICES INC.,

Defendant.

SANDRA ROBISON,

Plaintiffi'Intervenor.

EXPERT OR CONSULTANT'S

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

I. My full name is

2. My address is _~_ _ _ __

3. My present employer is .

-----------_.

4. My present occupation or job description is _ _

5. My prior regular employment or past or present regular employment with
either parly to this action are:_~_~~~_~~~~_. - - - - _.._ - -
_ - - - - - - -..

PROTECTIVE ORDER -10

BOI_MT2:513455.4

• •
6. I also serve as an employee, agent, offieer or director oCthe following entities: _ _ __
.•- ----~ - - - - . -
7. 1 have received a copy of the Protective Order entered in this action. I have carefully read and understand the provisions of [he Protective Order. 1 will comply with all of the provisions of the Protective Order.
8. I will not disclose any protected inCormation to anyone not identified in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protective Order. I will usc any such information only with respect to this action.
9. 1 will return all protected information that comes into my possession, and all documents or things which I have prepared relating to such inCormation, to an attorney representing the party that has employed or retained me.
10. 1 submit to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of enforcement of the Protective Order.
DATED this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ . __,2003.

PROTECTIVE ORDER - II

BOI_MT2:513455.4

• • United States District Court

wm

for the

District of Idaho

September 11, 2003

* * CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING * *

Re: 1:03-cv-00065

I certify that I caused a copy of the attached document to be mailed or faxed to the following named persons:

John F Stanley, Esq.

1-206-220-6911

US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Seattle District Office

909 First Ave #400

Seattle, WA 98104-1061

Patricia M Olsson, Esq. 1-208-385-5384 MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT ROCK & FIELDS PO Box 829 Boise, ID 83701

Cynthia Jane Woolley, Esq. ROARK LAW FIRM 409 N Main St Hailey, ID 83333

1-208-788-3918

~ Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill
Judge Edward J. Lodge ---\I--/7'Chief Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle --"---"Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams
Visiting Judges: Judge David O. Carter
------Judge John C. Coughenour ___Judge Thomas S. Zil1y

Date:

Cameron S. Burke, Clerk
BY: (Deputy Clerk)

 
 10-21-04 03:48pm
I 2 3 4 S

• From-JUDGE DAVID 0, CARTER

• +7143384539

T-488 P.02

H05

U.S, Courts f\-(

Rec'd

Filec.\...U..1!-

Dei 21 2004
Cameron S. Burke Clerk, Idaho

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

10

11 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
12 Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC.,
IS
Defendant. 16

CASE NO. Ol-065-S-MHW

~~ORDERDENYING

T

0 PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE

MYNEAR AFFIDAVIT

17

18

19

20

21

Before the Com is a motion by Defendant, Ameripride Services, Inc. ("Ameripride"), for

22 summary judgment on the issue of damages. Following the filing of the moving, opposing, and

23 replying papers, Ameripride submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment a

24 Supplemental Memorandum (document # 39) and an affidavit by Shawn Mynear, the general

25 manager of the Ameripride Twin Falls office, ("Mynear Affidavit"), Plaintiff, the Equal

26 Employment Oppomurity Commission ("EEOC" or "the Commission"), subsequently moved to

27 exclude the Mynear Affidavit. After reviewing the papers, the oral argument, and for the

28 reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion for summary judgment on the issue of

i)t)

10-11-04 03:41pm

• From-JUDGE DAVID 0, CARTER

• +71433B4539

T-4BB P.03

H05

1 damages and DENIES the motion to exclude the Mynear affidavit.

2

L

3

BACKGROUND

4

The Commission brought this action against Ameripride under Title VII of the Civil

5 Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct allegedly unlawful

6 employment practices on the basis of sex. The alleged discrimination occurred when Sandra

7 Robison, an intervenor in this action, and Brenda Foster submitted applications in October of 8 2001 for a Customer Service Representative ("CSR") position at the Ameripride facility in Twin

9 Falls. The CSR position required the delivery of Ameripride products to customers through the lOuse of one ofAmeripride's delivety vehicles. Ameripride interviewed both Robison and Foster 11 for the position, but ultimately hired a diffel:ent applicant, Mark Brown. Robison's deposition

12 testimony recounts Robison's experience interviewing with Ameripride, during which the

13 interviewer allegedly made sexist comments, stating that Robison "looked more like a secretary"

14 than a truck driver. Robison Depo., 158:10-18.

15

Brown applied for the position on or around October 29,2001, was hired and began

16 employment during November, 2001, and continued employment through July, 2002. The

17 parties do not dispute that on June 28,2002, Ameripride hired Ryan Wilson in some capacity.

18 The Commission contends that Ameripride hired Wilson as a CSR, whereas Ameripride claims 19 that it hired Wilson as a "hopper," which is different from a CSR. Additionally, the parties do 20 not dispute that on August 19, 2002, Ameripride hired Tuan Pothoff, another male, as a CSR in

21 Twin Falls.

22

The parties also dispute how long Robison and Foster would have remained with

23 Ameripride in a CSR position in the event that they had been hired. Ameripride contends that

24 the deposition testimony of Robison and Foster conclusively establishes that they would have
25 remained there only one or two years before resigIring. In support of this contention with respect

26 to Robison, Ameripride cites to Robison's deposition testimony in which she described how she

27 and her husband decided to relocate to Las Vegas, Nevada, in May of 2003. Ameripride 28

2

10-21-04 03:49pm

• From-JUDGE DAVID 0, CARTER

• +TI43384539

H88 p, 04/12 F-705

1 contends that Robison's testimony establishes that Robison's husband relocated to Las Vegas in

2 order to work there beginning in April, 2002. Robison Depo., 238:18-240:17. At that point in

3 April 2002, Robison decided to work only part rime because she had at least one child still living

4 with her in Idaho. Robison also decided that she would move to Las Vegas once her son had

5 completed high school in Idaho. fd at 214: 12-215:4,236:10-20. Robison finally did move to

6 Las Vegas in May, 2003 once her son graduated.

7

On the other hand, the Commission asserts that Ameripride misconstrues the import of

8 Robison's deposition testimony. The Commission asserts that, although all of the above facts

9 are accurate regarding Robison's decision to work part time and to relocate, Robison's husband

10 would not have accepted employment in Nevada aod Robison would not have relocated to 11 Nevada if she had obtained employment at Ameriprlde or else where in Twin Falls. As evidence 12 for this assertion, the Commission cites to Robison's deposition testimony in which she 13 describes that her husband had previously turned down a number ofjob offers in Nevada when
14 Robison was gainfully employed in Twin Falls. fd. at 207:11-208:8. The Commission contends
15 that ifAmerlpride had hired Robison in October, 2001, she would not have had any reason to 16 move to Nevada in May, 2003.

17

With respect to Foster, Ameripride asserts that she would have worked there only until

18 her children had moved from the family home, at which time she would "go trucking" with her
19 husband,whodrovetl1lcksforaliving. See Foster Depo., 103:24-104:8; 109:24-110:14. The

20 Commission, on the other hand, argues that nothing in the record supports Ameripride's 21 assertion that Foster would have remained in the CSR position for only one or two years. At the

22 time that Foster interviewed with Ameripride, her youngest child was only fourteen years old,
23 Foster Depo., 39:2-6. As further support for its argument, the Commission cites the fact that

24 shortly after being rejected by Ameripride, Foster was hired to drive a school bus and has 25 remained in that position since that time, for almost three years. !d. at 119:25-120:7
26 /I I 27 III
28

3

10-21-04 01:49pm From-JUDGE DAVIi CARTER
1

• +71411845,9
R

T-488 P,OS/12 F-705

2

LEGAL STANDARD ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT

3

Summary judgment is proper if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

4 and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as

5 to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.

6 R. Civ. P. 56(c).

7

The Court must view the facts and draw inferences in the manner most favorable to the

8 non-moving party. United Slales v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654,655,82 S. Ct. 993, 994 (1962).

9 However, the existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an

10 otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; to defeat the motion, the nou-

11 moving party must affinnatively set forth facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.

12 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49,106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986). The

13 moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material

14 fact for trial. Id at 256, 106 S. Ct. at 2514. When the non-moving party bears the burden of

15 proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden by pointing out the absence

16 of evidence of a genuine issue of material fact from the non-moving party. Musick v. Burke, 913

17 F.2d 1390, 1394 (9th Cit. 1990). The moving panyneed not disprove the other party's case.

18 Celotex Corp. v. Cmrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553-54 (1986).

19

When the moving party meets its burden, the "adverse party may not rest upon the mere

20 allegations or denials of the adverse party's plearung, but the adverse party's response, by

21 affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is

22 a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgmenT, if
23 appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). "The mere 24 existence of a scintilla of evidence. .. will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the 25 jury could reasonablyfmd for [the opposing party)." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S. Ct. at
26 2512.

27 / / / 28

4

10-21-04 03:49pm From-JUDGE DAVID~ CARTER

+7143384539 •

r-488 P.06/IZ HOi

1

III.

2

DISCUSSION

3 A. Motion for Summary Judgment

4

At issue in this motion for summary judgment is the amount of damages that would be

5 available to Robison and Foster in the event that they prove liability for discrimination.

6 Defendant argues that the amount of damages available depends on two factors: (1) the number

7 of positions that would have been available to Robison and Foster at Ameripride and (2) the
g length of time that the applicant probably would have worked at the position if she had been

9 hired. Defendant contends that the amount of damages available to Robison and Foster should

10 be limited to "the applicants' probable career(s) with AmeriPride, and then divided in half" 11 Def. Memo. in Support of Mot. for Summary Judgment, 17.

12

One of the purposes of Title VII is "to make persons whole for injuries suffered on

13 account of unlawful employment discrimination." Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S.

14 405,418,95 S.Ct. 2362, 2372 (1975). "The injured party is to be placed, as near as maybe, in

15 the situation he would have occupied if the wrong had not been committed." Id at 418-19.

16 Ameripride cites to Fourth Circuit law to establish that when a company is found to be liable for 17 discrimination in hiring, the company is liable for the injured party's "loss of opportunity to bid

18 on ajob" because of the injured party's protected characteristic. See White v. Carolina

19 Paperboard Corp., 564 F.2d 1073, 1086 (4th Cir. 1977). The Fourth Circuit, in the context of

20 racial discrimination in hiring, stated that the company "should be required to pay for each

21 vacancy which existed and to which the eligible black employees could not aspire because of

22 their race." Id The Fourth Circuit went on to state that "if only one vacancy existed, for

23 example, with twelve black employees eligible, it would be equally unjust to make the company

24 pay twelve times for one injury as not to require it to pay at all." [d Ameripride further cites

2.5 Fowth Circuit law for the proposition that the "hypothetical work histories" of the

26 discriminated-against applicants detemllnes the amount of damages that is available to them.

27 Equal Employment Opportunity Comm 'n v. Ford Motor Co., 645 F.2d 183, 189 (4th Cir. 1981). 28

5

10-/1-04 0,:49pm From-JUDGE DAVli CARTER

+71433845,9 ~ T-488 POI/I! H05

I

In other words, Ameripride argues that the correct way to calculate the amount of

2 damages available to Robison and Foster in this action is to determine the total amount each

3 applicant would have earned had she been hired by Ameripride, then multiply that amount by the

4 ratio of positions for which the applicants could have been hired to number of discriminated-

5 against applicants. Ameripride argues that summary judgment is appropriate on the question of

6 damages by arguing that it is undisputed that Robison and Foster could have been hired for only 7 one potential position as a CSR at Ameripride and that it is further \U1.disputed that Robison and

8 Foster would have worked at Ameripride for only one or two years had they been hired for that

9 one position.

10

1. Female Applicants' Hypothetical Work Histories

11

Without disputing Ameripride' s proposed method of determining damages in this action,

12 the Commission opposes the motion for summary judgment by arguing that there is a genuine

13 dispute offacts that are material to Ameripride's proposed damage calculation. With respect to

14 each applicant's hypothetical work history, clearly a genuine dispute exists. Because the inquiry 15 here as to how long each applicant would have stayed in the CSR positiOn is necessarily

16 speCUlative, the Court is especially hesitant to fmd that no genuine dispute of material fact exists.

17 Although Ameripride asserts that the deposition testimony indisputably shows that neither of the 18 applicants would have stayed with Ameripride beyond two years, the Commission convincingly

19 points out flaws in Ameripride's argument. While Foster may have planned to "go trucking"

20 with her husband once her children were no longer dependent on her, it is not plausible to assert 21 that she would have done so-when her daughter was only sixteen years old. Similarly, 22 Ameripride's assertion that Robison would have relocated to Nevada even if Ameripride had
23 hired her as a CSR in Twin Falls is equally implausible. Robison's deposition testimony at least
24 suggests that the only reason her husband accepted employment in Nevada was that it was the 25 family'S only option in light of Robison's inability to find work. Robison Depo., 207: 11-208:8. 26 In light of the conflicting interpretations of the deposition testimony and in light of the

27 speculative nature of this inquiry, the issue of the applicants' hypothetical employment history is
28

6

10-!1-04 03,49pm From-JUDGE DAVI ,CARTER

• +7ImS4519

T-tss P.OS/IZ F-705

lone better left to determination by a jury.

2

2. Number of Vacancies to Which the Eligible Female Employees Could Not Aspire

3

Because of Their Sex

4

With respect to the number ofpositions that would have been available to the applicants

5 had they not been female, the Commission relies on a document produced by Ameripride in 6 discovery, which is entitled "CSR's [sic] hired September 2001, thru [sic] September 6,2002."

7 The Commission relies on this document to establish that Ameripride hired Ryan Wilson as a
8 CSR on June 28, 2002. The date of this alleged fact is significant because ifAmeripride hired
9 Wilson as a CSR on that date, it occurred prior to Mark Brown's resignation,1 and shows that at

10 least two positions would have been available to the applicants had they not been female.

11

The Court finds that summary judgment is not appropriate on the issue of how many

12 positions would have been available to the female applicants because a genuine dispute offaet

13 exists. For purposes of clarity and to ease the later discussion of the Commission' s motion to
14 exclude the affidavit of Shawn Mynear. the Court here recounts the sequence offacts alleged in 15 the parties' papers. First, Ameripride moved for summary judgment stating that "[i]t is beyond 16 dispute that between the time plaintiffs submitted their employment applications in October, 17 2001, and the time that Mr. Brown left his eSR position in July, 2002, there were no other eSR

18 openings at the Twin Falls facility." In opposition, the Commission cited the list of CSRs hired

19 between September of 2001 and 2002 to show that Ameripride hired Ryan Wilson prior to
20 Brown's resignation, as discussed above. In reply to that opposition, Arneripride backed away 21 from its earlier assertion and acknowledged that "two openings came about in the spring and

22 summer of 2002," but Ameripride maintained that only one opening existed at the time that

23 Robison and Foster applied. PI. Reply, 2 n.l.

24

Two weeks later, Ameripride filed a Supplemental Memorandum in support of its motion

25 for summary judgment. In this Supplemental Memorandum. Ameripride asserted that in spite of

26 lAs discussed in the Background section, Mark Brown was the applicant who
27 applied and was interviewed at the same time as Robison and Foster, but who was hired 28 following his interview. He resigned from the CSR position in July. 2002.

7

10-21-04 03:49pm

• From-JUDGE DAVIO 0, CARTER

• +TlmS4!S9

T-4B! P.09/12 F-TO!

1 the list provided to the Commission showing Ryan Wilson as being hired in the Twin Falls

2 facility as a CSR on June 28, 2002, Wilson was hired in Twin Falls not as a CSR, but as a "route

3 hopper," which is different from a CSR. Def. Supp_ Memo., 3. Along with the Supplemental

4 Memorandum, Ameripride submitted the affidavit of Shawn Mynear ("Mynear Affidavit"). In

5 the affidavit, Mynear states that he is the general manager of the Ameripride Twin Falls office.

6 The Mynear Affidavit further states:

7

Mr. Wilson was hired as a route hopper on June 26, 2002. 'When he completed his

8

probation, he received a raise to $ 12.S01br and continued in the route hopper

9

position. The route hopper position is one which 'fills in' for absent CSRs. The

10

route hopper does not eam commission. He also filled in as a shuttle driver during

11

this pertod, out ofthe Twin Falls office. In December 2002, he became a CSR for

12

Route 40 (out of Boise).... The [list ofCSRs hired between September 2001 and

13

2002] was prepared by AmeriPride in 2003 when Ryan Wilson was a CSR and is

14

unintentionally ambiguous.

15 Mynear Aff. ~~ 5-6.

16

Following the filing ofthe Supplemental Memorandum and the Mynear Affidavit, the

17 Commission moved to exclude the Mynear Affidavit and alerted the Court to the inconsistency

18 between the assertion in the Mynear Affidavit that the document was prepared in 2003 and the

19 date stamp on the document stating that it was faxed on September 17, 2002. Predictably.

20 Ameripride opposed the motion to exclude the affidavit, aclmowledged that it was in fact created

21 and faxed in 2002 for purposes of the administrative proceeding, and asserted that the

22 Commission has known that Ameripride hired Wilson as a "route hopper" since January 26,

23 2004, when the Commission deposed the manager of the Twin Falls Ameripride branch, Frank

24 Eckrote. In the Commission's Reply to Ameripride's opposition to the motion to exclude the

25 Mynear Affidavit, the Commission raised for the first time the issue ofwhether Ameripride had

26 a policy or custom ofreviewing old applications on file for vacancies as they occurred and

27 whether Ameripride is required by law to have such a policy. 28

8

10-21-04 1

0!:60pm

• From-JUDGE DAVID 0, CARTER

• +7143384531

T-486 P 1011 Z H05

After receiving all ofthese documents filed by the parties, it is not clear exactly how

2 many vacancies the female applicants could have been eligible to fiU, but it is clear that

3 Ameripride's original assertion that "[i]t is beyond dispute that ... there were no other CSR

4 openings at the Twin Falls facility" misses the mark. Neither of the parties has succeeded in

5 showing the number of vacancies actually available. It is not clear whether Ameripride would

6 have or should have considered the female applicants for "route hopper" positions and whether

7 such positions should constitute vacancies. It is also not clear whether Ameripride should have

8 considered the female applicants for any CSR position that became available in the year

9 following the date of their applications. It is not clear whether Ameripride had a policy of

10 reviewing old applications and it is not clear whether, even in the absence of such a policy,

11 Ameripride actually did reconsider the applications on file for male applicants.

12

The question of whether or not Ameripride had a policy of reviewing applications on file

13 is a factual question and it is a question that the parties dispute. The Commission has offered
14 evidence in the fonn of deposition testimony by Brian Gilliland, a service manager, that

15 Amelipride routinely reviewed applications on file when openings occurred. See Gilliland

16 Depo.,73:8-74:8. At oral argument, Ameripride disputed the existence of such a policy.

17 Although the excerpts from the Gilliliand deposition support the notion that Ameripride

18 reviewed applications on fIle at least sometimes, the few lines of testimony submitted to the

19 Court are not sufficient to demonstrate conclusively that Ameripride had a policy of reviewing

20 applications on file. However, the excerpts are sufficient to raise a genuine question of fact. If

21 at trial the Commission can establish that Ameripride had a policy of retaining applications for

22 one year and reviewing them when openings occurred, then the female applicants should have

23 had the opportunity to compete for all vacancies that occurred during that year-long period.

24

Further, even if Ameripride does not have such a policy, if Ameripride actually retained

25 and reviewed applications of male applicants when it was hiring in June and August of 2002,

26 then the female applicants should have had the opportunity to compete for those positions also.

27 Neither party has addressed the factual question of whether Ameripride actually did review CSR

28

9

10-11-04 03:50pm From-JUDGE DAVI. CARTER

• +7143384539

T-4$8 P.ll/12 F-705

1 applications on me when it hired Ryan Wilson (either as a CSR or a route hopper) in June, 2002

2 or when it hired Tuan Pothoff in August, 2002. If similarly situated male applicants were

3 reconsidered when Ameripride made these hiring decisions in 2002, then Robison and Foster

4 should have had the opportunity to be reconsidered also. At this point, the facts are insufficient

5 to support a conclusion either way.

6

These questions of whether Ameripride would have or should have considered the female

7 applicants for other similar positions and whether Ameripride would have or should have 8 considered them for positions that became available after the date of their interviews 9 significantly complicate the issue of how many opportunities to compete the female applicants 10 were denied because of their sex. At this point, the evidence is dear that ajury could reasonably 11 fmd that one vacancy existed or that two or three vacancies existed. These questions are based 12 in fact and the parties ought to present them to a jury.

13 B. Motion to Exclude Mynear Affidavit

14

As discussed above, the Commission has moved to exclude the Mynear Affidavit. The

15 Commission argues that Ameripride has violated Rules 26(a) and (e) and that the Court should

16 exdude the affidavit under Rule 37(c) as a result ofthe violation. Under Rule 26(a)(I)(A) and

17 (B), the parties must disclose to each other the names of peoplo likely to have discoverable

18 information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims and defenses and documents 19 or tangible things that the disclosing party may use to support its claims and defenses. Ped. R 20 eiv. P. 26(a)(1)(A), (B). Further Rule 26(e) requires a party to supplement any disclosure "if the 21 party learns that the information disclosed is incomplete or incorrect and if the additional Of 22 corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the 23 discovery process or in writing." Fed. R. Clv. P. 26(e)(1)(a).

24

The Commission argues that Ameripride violated these discovery rules by disclosing the

25 admiuedly ambiguous document listing the CSRs hired between September of 2001 and 2002

26 and by failing to bring the ambiguity to light prior to filing the Mynear Affidavit. In opposition,

27 Ameripride argues that it did not violate its duties to disclose or supplement because the 28

10

10-21-04 03:50pm From-JUDGE DAV'i CARTER

• +714l3I4!!9

T-488 P 12/12 HOI

1 infonnation regarding Wilson's employment as a "route hopper" was known to the Commission

2 since the deposition of Frank Eckrote in January of 2004. Indeed, in the Eckrote deposition, the

3 Commission discovered that Eckrote did not hire Wilson as a CSR, but as a "route hopper."

4 Eckrote Depo., 169: 10-171:6. Because the Commission was on notice that Wilson's

5 employment status was in dispute, Ameripride did not have an obligation to disclose that under

6 Rule 26(e) and, thus, did not violate Rule 26.

7 IV. DISPOSITION

8

For the foregoing reasons, the Cmllt DENIES Ameripride's motion for summary

9 judgment on the issue of damages and DENIES the motion to exclude the Mynear Affidavit.

10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: October 21, 2004

14
15

~~(j'~

O.CARTER

16

United States District Judge

17 18

19

20 21 22 23

24
25
26

27 28

11

• • United States District Court

dkh

for the

District of Idaho

October 23, 2004

* * CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING * *

Re: 1:03-cv-00065

I certify that I caused a copy of the attached document to be mailed or faxed to the following named persons:

John F Stanley, Esq.

1-206-220-6911

US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Seattle District Office

909 First Ave #400

Seattle, WA 98104-1061

Lisa Cox, Esq. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061

Patricia M Olsson, Esq. 1-208-385-5384
MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT ROCK & FIELDS
PO Box 829 Boise, ID 83701

Cynthia Jane Woolley, Esq.
WOOLLEY & POGUE
PO Box 6999
Ketchum, ID 83340

1-208-725-5569

_____Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill Judge Edward J. Lodge
-----,Chief Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle
---=;-;--Magistrate Judge Mikel H. williams
Visit5ng Judges:
vrJudge David o. Carter
-----Judge John C. Coughenour _____Judge Thomas S. Zilly

Date:

Cameron S. Burke, Clerk
BY: (Deputy Clerk)

 
 1 LISA COX, TRIAL ATTORNEY
2 Lisa.Cox@eeoc.gov A. LUIS LUCERO, JR., REGIONAL ATTORNEY
3 JOHN F. STANLEY, ACTING SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
4 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104
5 Tel: (206) 220-6890 Fax: (206) 220-6911
6 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF IDAHO

10

11 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

12

)

Plaintiff,

)

13

)

and

)

14

)

SANDRA ROBISON,

)

15

)

Plaintiff Intervenor, )

16

)

vs.

)

17

)

AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC., )

18

)

Defendant.

)

19 _____________________________ )

Case No. CV-03-065-S-BLW
CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

20

21

I. INTRODUCTION

22

1. This action originated when Sandra Robison filed a charge with the Equal Employment

23 Opportunity Commission ("EEOC” or “Commission") on or about May 6, 2002. Robison alleged

24 that AmeriPride Services, Inc., Twin Falls branch (“AmeriPride”) discriminated against her based

25 upon her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e, et seq.

26 ("Title VII") when she was denied employment as a Customer Service Representative/Route Sales

27 Driver.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

1

2. On October 22, 2002, the EEOC issued a letter of determination with a finding of

2 reasonable cause that AmeriPride violated Title VII when Robison and similarly situated female

3 applicants were not hired for the Customer Service Representative/Route Sales Driver position.

4 Thereafter, the EEOC attempted to conciliate the charge, but was unsuccessful.

5

3. The Commission filed its Complaint on February 21, 2003, in the United States District

6 Court for the District of Idaho in Boise, Idaho. The complaint alleges that AmeriPride violated Title

7 VII by failing to hire Robison and similarly situated female applicants because of their sex. The

8 EEOC identified two similarly situated female applicants, one of whom withdrew her claim prior to

9 this resolution.

10

4. D efendant denied the allegations of discrimination in the EEOC’s amended complaint and

11 asserted several affirmative defenses.

12

5. The Court then granted Robison leave to intervene by Order dated July 2, 2003.

13

6. T he parties want to conclude fully and finally all claims arising out of EEOC’s complaint,

14 the charge of discrimination filed with EEOC by Sandra Robison, and the complaint the EEOC filed

15 pursuant to Title VII. The EEOC and AmeriPride enter into this Consent Decree to further the

16 objectives of equal employment as set forth in Title VII and Idaho state law.

17

II. NONADMISSION OF LIABILITY AND NONDETERMINATION

18

BY THE COURT

19

7. This Consent Decree is not an adjudication or finding on the merits of this case and shall

20 not be construed as an admission by Defendant of a violation of Title VII or Idaho state law.

21

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22

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

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

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

25 Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful in the

26 complaint filed herein occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the

27 District Idaho.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

1

IV. SETTLEMENT SCOPE

2

9. T his Consent Decree is the final and complete resolution of all allegations of unlawful

3 employment practices contained in Robison’s discrimination charge, in the EEOC's administrative

4 determinations, and in the complaint filed herein, including all claims by the parties for attorney fees

5 and costs. The scope of this Consent Decree will be limited to AmeriPride’s facilities in Twin Falls,

6 Idaho.

7

V. MONETARY RELIEF

8

10. In settlement of this lawsuit, AmeriPride agrees to pay Sandra Robison

9 $82,500 and Brenda Foster $27,500 within fifteen (15) business days of the date this Consent Decree

10 is entered by the Court. Robison’s settlement proceeds will be handled between AmeriPride and

11 Cynthia Wooley, Robison’s legal counsel, whose law offices are located at 180 West First Street,

12 Suite 107, P.O. Box 6999 Ketchum, ID. 83340. AmeriPride shall mail Foster’s settlement check

13 directly to her at an address to be provided by the EEOC. Robison and Foster have executed

14 separate release agreements to which the EEOC is not a party, in return for the payment of settlement

15 funds. The agreements specify that the funds are subject to applicable taxes.

16

VI. AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER RELIEF

17

A. General Provisions

18

11. A meriPride, its officers, agents, and employees will refrain from engaging in practices

19 which unlawfully discriminate against applicants and/or employees on the basis of sex. In recognition

20 of its obligations under Title VII, AmeriPride will institute the policies and practices set forth below.

21

B. Anti-Discrimination Policies and Procedures

22

12. A meriPride shall institute and carry out anti-discrimination policies, procedures and

23 training for employees, supervisors and management personnel, to the extent not already established,

24 and will provide equal employment opportunities for all employees. AmeriPride will evaluate and,

25 where appropriate, modify the practices of its managers and supervisors in order to prevent

26 discrimination in employment. AmeriPride will ensure that its managers and supervisors understand

27 its Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) policies and how those policies define and identify what

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

1 constitutes employment discrimination.

2

13. Within sixty (60) days of the date of the effective date of this Consent Decree,

3 AmeriPride will: (a) review its EEO policy, and revise it as necessary, to ensure that it adequately

4 prohibits discrimination against applicants and/or employees on the basis of sex and addresses

5 AmeriPride’s obligation to provide a discrimination-free work environment for its employees; and (b)

6 distribute a written copy of its EEO policy to all present and future employees, both management and

7 non-management. AmeriPride will provide EEOC with a written copy of its EEO policy as part of its

8 first annual report as provided in paragraph 21 below.

9

C. Training

10

14. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the execution of this Consent Decree, and

11 annually thereafter, AmeriPride will develop and present to all supervisory employees in its Twin

12 Falls, Idaho facility three (3) hours of training on employment discrimination issues, including

13 discrimination against applicants and/or employees based on sex. The EEOC will have an opportunity

14 to review the training materials prior to the training date.

15

15. A meriPride will notify the EEOC of the completion of the training and will specify the

16 names and job titles of the employees who participated in and completed the training as part of its

17 annual reporting to the EEOC.

18

D. Expungement of Records

19

16. A meriPride will not disclose any information or make references to any charge of

20 discrimination or this lawsuit in responding to requests for information about Sandra Robison or

21 Brenda Foster.

22

17. A meriPride will expunge from the files of Robison and Foster, and from any other

23 records where the company keeps such information, with the exception of the legal files maintained

24 by General Counsel and outside counsel, any references to a charge of discrimination against

25 AmeriPride and this lawsuit. If Robison or Foster wishes to do so, AmeriPride will permit them to

26 review any personnel file pertaining to them within thirty (30) days after the entry of this Consent

27 Decree to ensure that all such references have been expunged. AmeriPride will not add any

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

1 information or references to the personnel files of Robison or Foster or records regarding the charge

2 of discrimination and this lawsuit after such references have been expunged.

3

E. P olicies Designed to Promote Supervisor Accountability

4

18. A meriPride agrees that it shall impose substantial discipline -- up to and including

5 termination, suspension without pay or demotion -- upon any supervisor or manager who

6 discriminates against any applicant and/or employee on the basis of sex. AmeriPride shall

7 communicate this policy to all of its supervisors and managers.

8

19. A meriPride agrees that it will revise its staff level management appraisal process to

9 include performance evaluations for the handling of EEO issues as an element in staff level

10 management appraisals, and to link such evaluations directly to staff level management salary/bonus

11 structure.

12

20. A meriPride agrees that it shall include “commitment to equal employment opportunity”

13 as a criterion for qualification for supervisory positions.

14

G. Reporting

15

21. AmeriPride shall report in writing and in affidavit form to the EEOC on an annual basis

16 the following information:

17

a. Certification of the completion of three (3) hours of training and list of attendees;

18

b. Certification that its EEO policy has been distributed to all current and newly hired

employees;

19

c. A list of any changes, modifications, revocations or revisions to its EEO policies and

20

procedures which concern or affect the subject of discrimination or retaliation.

21

d. A summary of discrimination complaints, if any, filed by employees working at

AmeriPride which are reported to management and the resolution of each complaint;

22

and

23

e. A statement listing the other provisions of this Decree that defendant is required to

perform and certifying that AmeriPride has complied with the terms of the Decree. If

24

AmeriPride has not complied with any term of the Decree, the statement will specify

the areas of noncompliance, the reason for the noncompliance, and the steps taken to

25

bring the defendants into compliance.

26

H. Posting

27

22. A meriPride will post a Notice, attached as Exhibit 1 to this Consent Decree. The Notice

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

1 shall be posted on a centrally located bulletin boards at its Twin Falls facilities for the duration of the

2 Consent Decree.

3

VII. ENFORCEMENT

4

23. If the EEOC determines that AmeriPride has not complied with the terms of this Decree,

5 the EEOC will provide written notification of the alleged breach to AmeriPride. The EEOC will not

6 petition the court for enforcement of the decree for at least thirty (30) days after providing written

7 notification of the alleged breach. The 30-day period following the written notice shall be used by the

8 parties for good faith efforts to resolve the dispute.

9

VIII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

10

24. The United States District Court for the District of Idaho shall retain jurisdiction over

11 this matter for the duration of the decree.

12

IX. DURATION AND TERMINATION

13

25. This Decree shall be in effect for three (3) years beginning the date this Court enters the

14 Consent Decree. If the EEOC petitions the Court for breach of the Decree, and the Court finds

15 AmeriPride to be in violation of the terms of the Decree, the Court may extend the duration of the

16 Decree.

17

X. CONCLUSION

18

26. The parties are not bound by any provision of this decree until it is signed by authorized

19 representatives of each party and entered by the Court.

20 //

21 //

22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //

26 //

27

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

1 Dated this 21st day of June , 2005.

2 A. LUIS LUCERO, JR.
3 Regional Attorney

4 JOHN F. STANLEY Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney
5 LISA COX
6 Trial Attorney

7 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
8 Seattle District Office
9 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104
10 Telephone (206) 220-6890

11

BY:

/s/ A. Luis Lucero, Jr.

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff

13

14 Patricia Olsson
15 Moffatt Thomas 101 S. Capitol Blvd. 10th Floor
16 P.O. Box 829 Boise ID 83701
17 (208) 345-2000

18 BY: /s/ Patricia M. Olsson

19 Attorneys for Defendant
20

21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27

ERIC DREIBAND General Counsel JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of the General Counsel 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

1

ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE

2

The Court, having considered the foregoing stipulated agreement of the parties,

3 HEREBY ORDERS THAT the foregoing Consent Decree be, and the same hereby is, approved as

4 the final decree of this Court in full settlement of this action. This lawsuit is hereby dismissed with

5 prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to any party. The Court retains jurisdiction of this

6 matter for purposes of enforcing the Consent Decree approved herein.

7

DATED: June 27, 2005

8

9

10

B. LYNN WINMILL

Chief Judge

11

United States District Court

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

1

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

2

This notice is being posted pursuant to an agreement between AmeriPride

3 Services, Inc. (“AmeriPride”) and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

entered as the result of a resolution of a lawsuit in federal district court. There was no 4 finding on the merits of the lawsuit and this notice should not be considered an admission

5

by AmeriPride of a violation of any law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Age Discrimination in

6 Employment Act of 1967, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Americans with Disabilities

Act of 1990 are enforced by the EEOC and require the following: 7

8

That there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for

employment because of the employee's race, sex, color, religion, national

9

origin, age (over age 40), or disability with respect to hiring, firing,

compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment. 10

11

It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against any

employees or applicants for employment because they have opposed a practice or

12

because they have made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner

in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under these statutes. 13

14 AmeriPride has instituted a training program to train its supervisory employees
15
regarding the requirements of the above statutes. 16

17

AmeriPride has posted this notice because the company supports and will comply

18 with these federal laws in all respects.

19

20

21

22

DATED

23

24

25

26 Exhibit A
27

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC.,

)

___________________________________)

Case No. CV-03-65-S-BLW JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed June 17, 2005,

(Docket No. 93),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this action

be DISMISSED with Prejudice, with all parties bearing their own costs and

attorney’s fees.

DATED: June 27, 2005

B. LYNN WINMILL Chief Judge United States District Court

Judgment -- 1

 
 District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973990674708732-L_35...

CLOSED, LC3, MTNDDL, NDPMHW, PROTO
U.S. District Court District of Idaho (LIVE Database)Version 3.0.4 (Boise) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03-cv-00065-BLW-MHW

EEOC v. Ameripride Services Assigned to: Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Referred to: Honorable Mikel H. Williams Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 02/21/2003 Date Terminated: 06/27/2005 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by John Freeman Stanley US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6883 Fax: 1-206-220-6911 Email: john.stanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Cox EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6859 Fax: (206) 220-6911 Email: lisa.cox@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Damien A Lee EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6915 Fax: (206) 220-6915 Email: damien.lee@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

1 of 9

6/4/2007 9:38 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973990674708732-L_35...

Ameripride Services, Inc.
Intervenor Plaintiff Sandra Robison

represented by Patricia M Olsson MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT ROCK & FIELDS PO Box 829 Boise, ID 83701 (208) 345-2000 Fax: 1-208-385-5384 Email: pmo@moffatt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason G Murray MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT ROCK & FIELDS PO Box 829 Boise, ID 83701 (208) 345-2000 Fax: (208) 345-2000 Email: jgm@moffatt.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cynthia Jane Woolley LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA J WOOLLEY PLLC PO Box 6999 Ketchum, ID 83340 (208) 725-5356 Fax: 1-208-725-5569 Email: cynthia@ketchumidaholaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed
02/21/2003 02/21/2003
04/01/2003 04/03/2003
04/11/2003 04/17/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued) (jml)
2 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for plaintiff re complaint [1-1] (jml)
3 ANSWER by def; jury demand (wm) (Entered: 04/03/2003)
4 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for def re answer [3-1] (wm)
5 MOTION by Sandra Robison to intervene as pla (wm) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
6 OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND REASSIGNMENT of case to Honorable B. Lynn Winmill (cc: all counsel) (SEALED) (wm) (Entered: 04/18/2003)

2 of 9

6/4/2007 9:38 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973990674708732-L_35...

04/18/2003 05/14/2003 05/23/2003 06/02/2003 06/11/2003 06/24/2003 07/02/2003
07/02/2003 08/29/2003 09/11/2003 09/26/2003 10/20/2003 11/07/2003 01/05/2004 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 04/09/2004 04/12/2004 04/12/2004 04/12/2004

7 NOTICE of case number change to 03-65-S-BLW (wm)
8 NOTICE OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ; Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 5:15 6/16/03 (wm) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
9 NOTICE OF HEARING ; Teleconf reset for 6/11/03 at 10:00 (cc: all counsel) (wm)
10 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FORM - LITIGATION PLAN (wm) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
11 NOTICE OF HEARING ; Teleconf reset for 6/30/03 at 2:00 (cc: all counsel) (wm)
12 STIPULATION re motion to intervene (wm)
13 SCHEDULING ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill ; Telephonic Status Conference held 6/30/03 ; Discovery ddl set for 4/12/04 ; Disp Motion ddl set 4/12/04 ; Jury Trial set for 7/12/04 at 1:30 ; Pretrial Conference set for 6/29/04 at 8:00 ; ADR hearing set for 1/15/04 at 1:30 Matters of discovery referred to Judge Mikel H. Williams , Non-dispositive motions referred to Judge Mikel H. Williams (cc: all counsel) (wm)
14 ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill granting motion to intervene as pla [5-1] (cc: all counsel) (wm)
15 STIPULATION agreeing to entry of protective order (wm) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
16 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill : granting stipulation agreeing to entry of protective order [15-1] (cc: all counsel) (wm)
17 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for pla by Lisa Cox (wm) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
18 NOTICE of taking deposition of Sandra Robison on 11/10/03 (wm)
19 AMENDED NOTICE of taking deposition duces tecum of Sandra Robison on 11/10/03 (wm)
20 ADR PLAN by pla (wm) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
21 NOTICE of taking deposition duces tecum of Brenda Foster on 3/9/04 (wm)
22 NOTICE of taking deposition duces tecum of Leslie Sims on 3/10/04 (wm)
23 JOINT MOTION by pla to extend limited extension of discovery deadlines (wm) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
24 MOTION by def Ameripride Services for partial summary judgment Re: Damages (dkh) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
25 MEMORANDUM by def in support of motion for partial summary judgment Re: Damages [24-1] (dkh) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
26 AFFIDAVIT of Patricia M Olsson regarding motion for partial summary judgment Re: Damages [24-1] (Exhibits not scanned due to confidentiality) (dkh) (Entered: 04/13/2004)

3 of 9

6/4/2007 9:38 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973990674708732-L_35...

04/12/2004 04/15/2004 04/20/2004 04/27/2004 04/28/2004 04/30/2004
05/06/2004
07/02/2004 07/12/2004 07/12/2004 07/12/2004 07/27/2004 08/17/2004 08/17/2004 08/30/2004 08/30/2004 08/30/2004 08/30/2004

27 AFFIDAVIT of Dee Stansell regarding motion for partial summary judgment Re: Damages [24-1] (dkh) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
28 ORDER by Judge Mikel H. Williams granting motion to extend limited extension of discovery deadlines [23-1] DDL 5/27/04 (cc: all counsel) (dkh)
29 MOTION by intervenor-pla Sandra Robison to continue scheduling deadlines, trial and summary judgment (wm) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
30 AMENDED MOTION by intvp Sandra Robison to extend time to respond to motion for summary judgment (dkh) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
31 RESPONSE by def to motion to continue scheduling deadlines, trial and summary judgment [29-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
32 ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill granting motion to extend time to respond to motion for summary judgment [30-1] [29-1] ; Response to motion ddl extended to 7/12/04 (cc: all counsel) (ja)
33 ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill granting in part and denying in part motion to continue scheduling deadlines, trial and summary judgment [29-1] (cc: all counsel) (wm)
34 NOTICE OF HEARING motion for partial summary judgment Re: Damages [24-1] set before BLW in Boise 8:30 9/9/04 (cc: all counsel) (wm)
35 RESPONSE by pla to motion for partial summary judgment Re: Damages [24-1] (dkh) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
36 STATEMENT OF FACTS IN DISPUTE by pla in support of motion for partial summary judgment Re: Damages [24-1] (dkh) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
37 DECLARATION by Lisa Cox re motion for partial summary judgment Re: Damages [24-1] (dkh) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
38 REPLY by def Ameripride Services to response to motion for partial summary judgment Re: Damages [24-1] (dkh)
39 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by def Ameripride Services in support of motion for partial summary judgment Re: Damages [24-1] (dkh)
40 AFFIDAVIT of Shawn Mynear regarding motion for partial summary judgment Re: Damages [24-1] (dkh)
41 MOTION by pla EEOC to exclude affidavit of Shawn Mynear (dkh) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
42 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion to exclude affidavit of Shawn Mynear [41-1] (dkh) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
43 MOTION by pla EEOC to expedite period for briefing on pla's motion to exclude Shawn Mynear's affidavit (dkh) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
44 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion to expedite period for briefing on pla's motion to exclude Shawn Mynear's affidavit [43-1] (dkh) (Entered: 08/31/2004)

4 of 9

6/4/2007 9:38 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973990674708732-L_35...

08/30/2004 09/01/2004 09/02/2004 09/02/2004 09/17/2004
09/20/2004 09/20/2004 09/20/2004 10/06/2004 10/07/2004 10/12/2004
10/20/2004 10/21/2004
11/19/2004 01/03/2005
01/17/2005 01/28/2005 01/28/2005

45 DECLARATION by Lisa Cox re motion to expedite period for briefing on pla's motion to exclude Shawn Mynear's affidavit [43-1] (dkh) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
46 NOTICE by pla of counsel's change of address (ja)
47 NOTICE OF HEARING ; All Pending Motions Hrg set for 10/22/04 1:00 Boise before DOC (cc: all counsel) (dkh)
FILE DIVISION - File # 2 begins with document # 48 (dkh) (Entered: 10/12/2004)
48 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING Re: motion to exclude affidavit of Shawn Mynear [41-1] and motion for partial summary judgment Re: Damages [24-1] set before DOC in Boise 9:00 10/20/04 (cc: all counsel) (dkh)
49 MEMORANDUM by def Ameripride Services in opposition re: motion to exclude affidavit of Shawn Mynear [41-1] (dkh) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
50 AFFIDAVIT of Patricia M Olsson regarding motion to exclude affidavit of Shawn Mynear [41-1] (dkh) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
51 SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of Shawn Mynear regarding motion to exclude affidavit of Shawn Mynear [41-1] (dkh) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
52 NOTICE by intvrp Sandra Robison of change of address of counsel Woolley & Pogue (dkh)
53 REPLY by pla to response to motion to exclude affidavit of Shawn Mynear [41-1] (dkh)
54 ORDER by Judge Mikel H. Williams finding moot the motion to expedite period for briefing on pla's motion to exclude Shawn Mynear's affidavit [43-1] (cc: all counsel) (dkh)
56 MINUTES OF PENDING MOTIONS - ; All Pending Motions Hrg held 10/20/04 DOC (dkh) (Entered: 10/23/2004)
55 ORDER by Honorable David O. Carter denying motion for partial summary judgment Re: Damages [24-1], denying motion to exclude affidavit of Shawn Mynear [41-1] (cc: all counsel) (dkh) (Entered: 10/23/2004)
57 NOTICE OF HEARING ; Telephone Status Conference set for 12/14/04 2:00 (cc: all counsel) (dkh)
58 NOTICE of Hearing:Telephone for any motion in limine and Daubert motions Hearing set for 3/15/2005 01:30 PM in Boise, ID before Honorable James M. Fitzgerald. Jury Trial set for 6/6/2005 09:00 AM in Boise, ID before Honorable James M. Fitzgerald. (dkh, )
59 STIPULATION Re Briefing Schedule by Ameripride Services, Inc.. (Olsson, Patricia)
60 First MOTION in Limine Re: Reasonable Cause Determination by Ameripride Services, Inc.. Responses due by 2/22/2005 (Murray, Jason)
61 MEMORANDUM in Support re 60 First MOTION in Limine Re: Reasonable Cause Determination filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.. (Murray, Jason)

5 of 9

6/4/2007 9:38 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973990674708732-L_35...

01/28/2005 01/28/2005 01/28/2005 01/28/2005 01/28/2005 01/28/2005 01/28/2005
01/28/2005 01/28/2005 01/28/2005
01/28/2005
02/04/2005 02/18/2005
02/18/2005

62 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 60 First MOTION in Limine Re: Reasonable Cause Determination filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B)(Murray, Jason)
63 Second MOTION in Limine Re: Exclusion of OFCC and AAP Materials by Ameripride Services, Inc.. Responses due by 2/22/2005 (Murray, Jason)
64 MEMORANDUM in Support re 63 Second MOTION in Limine Re: Exclusion of OFCC and AAP Materials filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.. (Murray, Jason)
65 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Patricia M. Olsson re 63 Second MOTION in Limine Re: Exclusion of OFCC and AAP Materials filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1)(Murray, Jason)
66 Third MOTION in Limine RE: Exclusion of Plaintiffs' Expert, Carol Bernau by Ameripride Services, Inc.. Responses due by 2/22/2005 (Murray, Jason)
67 MEMORANDUM in Support re 66 Third MOTION in Limine RE: Exclusion of Plaintiffs' Expert, Carol Bernau filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.. (Murray, Jason)
68 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Patricia M. Olsson re 66 Third MOTION in Limine RE: Exclusion of Plaintiffs' Expert, Carol Bernau filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Murray, Jason)
69 MOTION to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony and Reports by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 2/22/2005 (Cox, Lisa)
70 MEMORANDUM/BRIEF re 69 MOTION to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony and Reports filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa)
71 DECLARATION of Lisa Cox re 69 MOTION to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony and Reports filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K)(Cox, Lisa)
72 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of David J. Shaffer Esq. by Sandra Robison. Responses due by 2/22/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Affidavit Fjeld in Support of Motion to Exclude# 3 Exhibit)(Fjeld, Kirstin)
73 ORDER granting 59 Stipulation Re: Briefing schedule filed by Ameripride Services, Inc., . Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (dkh, )
74 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 69 MOTION to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony and Reports of Mary Barros-Bailey filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Patricia M. Olsson# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B.1# 4 Exhibit B.2# 5 Exhibit C.1# 6 Exhibit C.2# 7 Exhibit D.1# 8 Exhibit D.2)(Olsson, Patricia)
75 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 72 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of David J. Shaffer Esq. filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of

6 of 9

6/4/2007 9:38 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973990674708732-L_35...

02/18/2005 02/18/2005 02/18/2005
02/18/2005
02/18/2005
02/28/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005 03/07/2005 03/09/2005

Patricia M. Olsson# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit A.1# 4 Exhibit A.2# 5 Exhibit A.3# 6 Exhibit A.4# 7 Exhibit A.5)(Olsson, Patricia)
76 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 66 Third MOTION in Limine RE: Exclusion of Plaintiffs' Expert, Carol Bernau filed by Sandra Robison. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Kirstin K. Fjeld)(Fjeld, Kirstin)
77 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 60 First MOTION in Limine Re: Reasonable Cause Determination filed by Sandra Robison. (Fjeld, Kirstin)
78 MEMORANDUM/BRIEF re 63 Second MOTION in Limine Re: Exclusion of OFCC and AAP Materials filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission In Opposition to Defendant's Motion In Limine to Exclude OFCC and Affirmative Action Materials. (Cox, Lisa)
79 DECLARATION re 63 Second MOTION in Limine Re: Exclusion of OFCC and AAP Materials filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission In Support of EEOC's Opposition. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit)(Cox, Lisa)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY - The entry docket number 78 Memorandum/Brief (generic), Memorandum/Brief (generic) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was docketed incorrectly in this case. Should have been docketed as a memorandum in opposition. No need to refile since it was correctly linked to the motion but for future reference. (dkh, ) (Entered: 02/22/2005)
80 REPLY to Response to Motion re 69 MOTION to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony and Reports Of Defendant's Expert Witness Mary Barros-Bailey filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa)
81 DECLARATION of Lisa Cox re 80 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa) Modified on 3/1/2005 to create link to motion(dkh, ).
82 REPLY to Response to Motion re 72 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of David J. Shaffer Esq. filed by Sandra Robison. (Fjeld, Kirstin)
83 REPLY to Response to Motion re 66 Third MOTION in Limine RE: Exclusion of Plaintiffs' Expert, Carol Bernau filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.. (Olsson, Patricia)
84 REPLY to Response to Motion re 63 Second MOTION in Limine Re: Exclusion of OFCC and AAP Materials filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.. (Olsson, Patricia)
85 REPLY to Response to Motion re 60 First MOTION in Limine Re: Reasonable Cause Determination filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.. (Olsson, Patricia)
86 NOTICE of Appearance by Damien A Lee on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Lee, Damien)
87 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 66 Third MOTION in Limine RE: Exclusion of Plaintiffs' Expert, Carol Bernau, 63 Second MOTION in Limine Re: Exclusion of OFCC and AAP Materials, 60 First MOTION in Limine Re: Reasonable

7 of 9

6/4/2007 9:38 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973990674708732-L_35...

03/15/2005 03/22/2005 03/23/2005
03/24/2005 03/31/2005
04/27/2005 06/17/2005 06/21/2005 06/22/2005 06/27/2005 06/27/2005

Cause Determination, 69 Motion to exclude 72 Motion to exclude: Motion Hearing reset for 3/31/2005 01:30 PM in Boise, ID before Honorable James M. Fitzgerald. (mp, ) Modified on 3/14/2005 (mp, ).The AT&T operator shall contact Melanie Patrick as the Boise Federal Courthouse. Modified on 3/14/2005 to include 2 other motions to be included in hearing (dkh, ).
88 STIPULATION Re: schedule for pre-trial submissions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa)
89 STIPULATION re 88 Stipulation Order Regarding Pre-Trial Schedule by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY - The entry docket number 89 Stipulation filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was filed incorrectly in this case. This is not a stipulation but states an unopposed motion but it is actually an order which should be e-mailed to "VistingJudgeOrders@id.uscourts.gov" for Judge Fitzgerald's signature. The filing party shall re-submit their correct filing. (dkh, )
90 ORDER RE: SCHEDULE FOR PRE-TRIAL SUBMISSIONS re 88 Stipulation filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, . Signed by Judge James M. Fitzgerald. (ja, )
91 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James M. Fitzgerald : Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 3/31/2005 re 72 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of David J. Shaffer Esq. filed by Sandra Robison,, 69 MOTION to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony and Reports filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,, 60 First MOTION in Limine Re: Reasonable Cause Determination filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.,, 63 Second MOTION in Limine Re: Exclusion of OFCC and AAP Materials filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.,, 66 Third MOTION in Limine RE: Exclusion of Plaintiffs' Expert, Carol Bernau filed by Ameripride Services, Inc.,. All parties presented oral argument to the Court. The Court deems the matters sumbitted and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Staci Heinz.) (mp, )
92 Remark: Court was informed that this case has settled. Settlement documents forthcoming. (lg, )
93 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Ameripride Services, Inc.. (Olsson, Patricia)
94 STIPULATION AND CONSENT DECREE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY - The entry docket number 94 Stipulation filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, should not have been docketed but rather sent to Judge Winmill's e-mail @ BLW_Orders@id.uscourts.gov for signature. The filing party shall re-submit filing to BLW. (dkh, )
95 CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dkh, )
96 JUDGMENT dismissing this action with prejudice, with all parties bearing their own costs and attorney's fees . Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of

8 of 9

6/4/2007 9:38 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?973990674708732-L_35...

Electronic Filing (NEF) by dkh, )

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/04/2007 08:40:30

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:03-cv-00065-BLW-MHW

Billable Pages:

6

Cost:

0.48

9 of 9

6/4/2007 9:38 AM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - June 2005

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement06-05.html

EEOC v. Ameripride Services, Inc. No. CV-03-065-S-BLW (D. Idaho June 27, 2005)
The Seattle District Office alleged in this Title VII suit that defendant, a linen supply company with nearly 200 facilities throughout the United States and Canada, discriminated against female applicants in hiring for Customer Service Representative/Route Sales Driver (CSR) positions in the Twin Falls, Idaho area. Defendant advertised for applicants for a CSR position in Twin Falls and stated that a Class B commercial drivers license was required. The Service Area Manager selected charging party, who had a Class B license and 6 years of commercial driving experience, along with four other applicants for a second interview. During the second interview, charging party also spoke with the Area Manager, who discouraged her from pursuing the position, mentioning that all the drivers were male and had a tendency to use foul language. The Area Manager told charging party she looked more like a secretary and said she should consider applying for a secretarial position that would be opening soon. The Area Manager hired a man for the position who did not have a Class B license or commercial driving experience. Two other female applicants also possessed superior qualifications to the man hired. Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay $110,000 in monetary relief, allocated between the charging party ($82,500) and another rejected female applicant ($27,500).

1 of 1

6/4/2007 9:58 AM