EAST~~l~~QmSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CDURTit

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS~I.. .;...=

DEC 2 1 1998

WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES VV 'MC'J)KIVIACK, CLERK

Dy.'
r;] - - -

--OEP ClFI5 --

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
SNACK VENDING COMPANY, INC.,

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

)

)

LR-C- 9 8 - 8 3 4

)

COMPLAINT

)

) CLASS IN NATURE CASE

ACmrrU.... Defendant. NATURE OF THE

_~~ : JURY TRIAL DEMA[7
'I1IIIc.e.slgnedto Distri

ataJudge

Jl j) -

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and to provide appropriate relief to Robert Storay and other Black applicants for employment who were denied employment as route drivers because of their race.
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 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1}. 4. At all relevant times Defendant, Snack Vending Company, Inc. (Defendant Employer), has continuously been an Arkansas corporation doing business in the state of Arkansas and the city of Little Rock, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701 (b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b), (g), and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit Robert Storay filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least July 21, 1996 Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facility located at 1010 North Street in Little Rock, Arkansas, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c), and 29
2

C.F.R. § 1602.14. The unlawful employment practices involve discriminating against Robert Storay, who is Black, and against Blacks as a class, in hiring for route driver jobs, constructively discharging Mr. Storay, and failing to preserve applications for employment for one year.
8. The effects of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above have been to deprive Mr. Storay and other Black applicants for employment of equal employment opportunities, and to otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants for employment because of their race.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice and/or with reckless indifference to Mr. Storay's federally protected rights and to the federally protected rights of other Black applicants for employment.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF Therefore the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates against Black applicants for employment because of their race;
3

B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Black applicants for employment, and which eradicate the effects of Defendant Employer's unlawful employment practices;
C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Robert Storay and other Black applicants for employment who were victims of Defendant's unlawful employment practices 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 Defendant Employer's unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful place placement in route driver positions;
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Mr. Storay and other Black applicants for employment who were victims of Defendant's unlawful employment practices by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses reSUlting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Mr. Storay and other Black applicants for employment who were victims of Defendant's unlawful employment practices by providing compensation for nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including emotional and psychological pain and suffering, in amounts to be determined at trial;
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Mr. Storay and other Black applicants for employment who were victims of Defendant's unlawful employment practices
4

punitive damages for Defendant's malicious and/or reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. (Concluded on next page.)
5

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
C. GREGORY STEWART General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
~ [1. fbA"l W) {p.r\{}~}
KATHARINE W. KORES Regional Attorney Tennessee Bar No. 6283
Supervisory Trial Attorney Tennessee Bar No. 9346
CARSON L. OWEN Senior Trial Attorney Tennessee Bar No. 9240 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 1407 Union Avenue, Suite 621 Memphis, Tennessee 38104 Telephone No. (901) 544-0133
6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

JlME; IJ

fjl.

,! !. / .
\ ",I "

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

PLAINTIFF

ROBERT STORAY

PLAINTIFF IN INTERVENTION

VS.

CASE ~JO. :LR-C-98-834

SNACK VENDING COMPANY, INC.

DEFENDANT

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

COMES NOW the Plaintiff in Intervention, Robert Storay, by and through counsel, Harrill

& Sutter P.L.L.C., and for his Complaint in Intervention, states:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1.

Plaintiff in Intervention Robert Storay, at all times relevant hereto, was and is an

African-American citizen of the UnitBd States and a resident of Little Rock, Pulaski County,

Arkansas.

2.

Defendant, The Snack Vending Company, Inc., at all times relevant hereto was

and is an Arkansas corporation doing business in the State of Arkansas, City of Little Rock,

Pulaski County, Arkansas.

3.

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by

the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and to remedy violations of Arkansas State law under the pendent

jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to United Mine Workers v. ...G.i.b.b., 38 U.S. 715 (1966) and 28

U.S.C. § 1367, including but not limited to, violations of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993.

Venue of this action lies in the Eastern District of Arkansas pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(f)

and 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

4.

Defendant is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e(b) and the

Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993, and employs more than fifteen (15) employees.

1

I .f-.\,--

5.

On December 19, 1997, Plaintiff in Intervention applied for a route driver position

with Defendant, Snack Vending Company, Inc. At the time of his application, Plaintiff in

Intervention had numerous years of route driving experience.

6.

On the same date as Plaintiff in Intervention's application for the aforementioned

route driver position, another white applicant with no route driver experience also applied with

Defendant; said white driver applicant was hired as a route driver by Defendant on January 30,

1998.

7.

Plaintiff in Intervention was hired by Defendant for a warehouse position on

March 9, 1998, at a rate of pay of approximately half that of a route driver position.

8.

On July 7, 1998, Defendant advertised a route driver position in the newspaper,

and Plaintiff in Intervention responded to the advertisement by asking to be considered for the

position.

9.

Defendant told Plaintiff in Intervention that no route driver positions were

available, and Plaintiff in Intervention subsequently produced the advertisement.

10. Defendant told Plaintiff in Intervention that he would have an opening for a route

driver soon, and they would break the Plaintiff in Intervention in slowly.

11. On July 16, 1998, a white applicant with no route driving experience was hired for

the vacant route driver position that Plaintiff in Intervention was allegedly to receive.

12. Upon learning that a white applicant with no route driving experience had been

hired to fill the position, Plaintiff in Inti::lrvention resigned his employment with Defendant on July

16, 1998.

13. Defendant has been in business for approximately twenty-three (23) years and

has contended that during this time, it hired a black male route driver in 1985, but upon

information and belief, this contention is false.

14. Defendant further contends that they transferred a black employee to a route

driver position in January of 1997, but upon information and belief, this contention is also false.

2

15. Defendant has previously contended that a third black employee was placed into a relief driver position, prior to Plaintiff's in Intervention filing of a Charge with the EEOC, but upon information and belief, this contention is also false.
16. At the time that Plaintiff in Intervention was constructively discharged, Defendant had no African-American route drivers.
17. All African-American employees of Defendant were confined to warehouse positions, which paid approximately half of what route driver positions paid.
18. At the time Plaintiff in Intervention was constructively discharged from Defendant's company, there were no African-American individuals working as route drivers, despite the fact that approximately sixty-percent (60%) of applicants for route driver positions over the prior period of two (2) years were African-American.
COUNT I - TITLE VII 19. Plaintiff in Intervention repeats and realleges the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 20. Defendant has denied! Plaintiff in Intervention equal employment opportunity for job assignments, promotion, wages and other terms and conditions of employment, solely due to Plaintiff in Intervention's race. 21. Defendant follows a policy and practice of discrimination in employment against African-Americans on account of their race. The policies and practices referred to herein have been and are implemented by Defendant among other ways as follows: a) Defendant maintains jobs in departments that are segregated on a basis of race, so that when employees are hired, assigned, promoted, or demoted, they are placed in a job that is either a "white job" or "African-American job". b) Defendant depresses all wages of African-American employees on the basis of race by assigning white employees to "white jobs" and African-American employees to "African
3

American jobs", and paying African-American employees the lowest wages possible under the

circumstances.

c)

Defendant excludes all or substantially all African-Americans, including Plaintiff in

Intervention, from route driver positions on the basis of their race.

d) Defendant assigns African-American employees to the lowest paid and the least

desirable jobs, these jobs generally being the jobs demanding the most strenuous and the most

continuous physical exertion.

22. Plaintiff in Intervention was employed by the Defendant working in the

warehouse, as were all African-American job positions, and was denied equal pay and job

opportunities due to his race.

23. Plaintiff in Intervention sought to be promoted or transferred to a better job

position, specifically, a route driver position, but Plaintiff in Intervention was denied such

promotion and transfer due to his race.

24. Plaintiff in Intervention attempted on or about December 19, 1997 and July 9,

1998, to be assigned to the open positions of route driver, but the Defendant refused to permit

Plaintiff in Intervention to transfer and instead, assigned the position to white employees with

less qualification, experience, or seniority.

25. Despite Plaintiff in Intervention's efforts to obtain better job positions and pay,

Defendant has continued to assign white employees, with less experience and/or seniority than

Plaintiff in Intervention, to better posiUons.

26. Plaintiff in Intervention worked for Defendant from March 9, 1998 through July

16, 1998, the time of his constructive discharge. Plaintiff in Intervention's work performance

was wholly satisfactory, and he was qualified to obtain the position of route driver. Yet, due to

the inheritantly discriminatory system of promotion used and approved of by Defendant, Plaintiff

in Intervention was never assigned to the position of route driver.

4

27. Plaintiff in Intervention, as an African-American employee, was treated in a disparate manner and subjected to Defendant's unfair policies and practices in that Plaintiff in Intervention was treated differently than white employees similarly situated with the Defendant. Said unfair policies and practices, both limited Plaintiff in Intervention in his job classifications, jobs assignments, wages, and other benefits because of his race, and further resulted in his constructive discharge from employment on or about July 16, 1998.
28. Defendant's method of selecting route drivers is a primary source of discrimination, which has resulted in an unfair denial of advancement opportunities of the African-American race and particularly, the Plaintiff in Intervention herein. No objective standards are used for the selection of route drivers. Defendant's selection of white only route drivers constitutes a self-perpetuating situation in which African-Americans is seldom, if ever, objectively considered for the position of route driver.
29. Due to Defendant's wrongfUl job advancement practices, Plaintiff in Intervention was ignored for the consideration for route driver, while Caucasian employees with less experience and seniority were being made route drivers. As a result thereof, Plaintiff in Intervention became increasingly dissatisfied with his employment and with the prospect of raising his objection to said practices. which not only failed, but also resulted in harassment and further discrimination against the Plaintiff in Intervention. All of the above-described conduct resulted in the constructive discharge of Plaintiff in Intervention, from which Plaintiff in Intervention seeks recovery of damagles.
CQUj\JT " - § 1981 VIOLATION 30. Plaintiff in Intervention repeats and realleges the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 31. Defendant has denied Plaintiff in Intervention equal employment opportunity for job assignments, promotion, wages and other terms and conditions of employment, solely due to Plaintiff in Intervention's race, African-American.
5

32. Defendant's actions, as set forth above, constitute unlawful employment discrimination In violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
COUNT III '" ARKANSAS CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 33. Plaintiff in Intervention repeats and realleges the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 34. Defendant has denied Plaintiff in Intervention equal employment opportunity for job assignments, promotion, wages and other terms and conditions of employment, solely due to Plaintiff in Intervention's race, African-American. 35. Defendant's actions, as set forth above, constitute unlawful employment discrimination in violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993.
DAMAGES 36. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's unlawful employment practices and disregard for Plaintiff in Intervention's rights, Plaintiff in Intervention has lost, and will continue to lose, substantial income, including but not limited to, wages, benefits, and compensation. 37. As a further direct and proximate result of said unlawful employment practices, Plaintiff in Intervention has suffered emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and aggravation.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff in Intervention, Robert Storay, prays that this Court enter Judgment in his favor and against Defendant, as follows: (a) that a finding be entered that Defendant intentionally discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff in Intervention with malice or reckless indifference to his protected rights in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Arkansas Civiil Rights Act of 1993, based upon his race/color;
6

(b) that said Plaintiff in Intervention be made whole by placing him in a route driver position with Defendant that would have been obtained but for the Defendant's unlawful discriminatory acts, with all its appropriate compensation and fringe benefits;
(c) that said Plaintiff in Intervention be awarded all wages, benefits, and compensation lost due to Defendant's unlawful discriminatory conduct;
(d) that said Plaintiff in Intervention be awarded punitive damages and compensatory damages in an amount exceeding that required for federal diversity jurisdiction;
(e) that said Plaintiff in Intervention be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs;
(f) that said Plaintiff in Intervention be awarded pre-judgment interest; (g) that said Plaintiff in Intervention be awarded injunctive relief and declaratory relief; and (h) that said Plaintiff in Intervention be awarded such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

f:\doC\storay\cplt2.doc

Hespectfully submitted,

HARRILL & SUTTER, P.L.L.C. Attorneys at Law F)ost Office Box 26321 ~11 0 Natural Resources Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72221 (501) 224-1050 FAX (501) 223-9136 Ntorneys for the Plaintiff(s)

_/~ /< -

~
BY: /

./

c L. Oneal Sutter (#950 -1---

Christopher Gomlicker (#95009)

7

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

MAY 15 2000
.~~~~ DEP(

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

ROBERT J. STOPAY,

)

)

Intervenor,

)

)

CIVIL ACTIOlN NO.

v.

)

)

LR-C-98-834

SNACK VENDING COMPANY, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

---.-----------------------

CONSENT DECREE

This lawsuit was filed January 28, 1998 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Snack Vending Company, Inc. (Snack Vending) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq. (Title VII). The Complaint in the lawsuit claims that Snack Vending discriminated against Robert Storay, who is Black, and against Blacks as a class, in hiring for route driver jobs, constructively discharged Mr. Storay, and failed to preserve applications for employment for one year. Robert Storay has been allowed to intervene ill this lawsuit.
EEOC, Mr. Storay, and Snack Vending have agreed to this consent decree to settle all of the claims involved in this lawsuit.

The Court has reviewed the terms of this decree in light of the applicable laws and regulations, and hereby approves this decree. THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED:
I. JURISDICTION The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Eastern Division, has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this lawsuit, and will retain jurisdiction over this decree for purposes of enforcement and dispute resolution.
II. DISCLAIMER Neither the negotiation of or agreement to this decree is an admission or acknowledgment by Snack Vending that it or any of its employees, officers, directors, or agents have violated Title VII.
III. DURATION AND USE OF DECREE This decree will be binding on the parties to this lawsuit for seven years after the date of its entry by the Court. The parties agree that this decree may not be used in any other court proceeding except a subsequent motion in this case for purposes of enforcement of this decree or the resolution of a dispute concerning this decree.
IV. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Snack Vending, its supervisors, managers, officers, directors, agents, and successors are enjoined from discriminating against employees because of their race.
V. INDIVIDUAL REMEDIES Within thirty days after the entry of this decree Snack Vending will pay to Robert Storay $6,150.00 in attorney's fees and $20,000.00 in back pay, less normal payroll tax deductions. The payment for attorney's fees will be made in the form of a check made
2

payable to "Harrill & Sutter, P.L.L.C.", and the payment of back pay to Mr. Storay will be made in the form of a check made payable to "Robert Storay". Both of these checks will be delivered to Christopher Gomlicker at Harrill & Sutter, P.L.L.C., 310 Natural Resources Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72205.
Within thirty days after the entry of this decree Snack Vending will also pay a total of $110,000.00 in back pay, less normal payroll tax deductions, to the other identified victims of discrimination in accordance with instructions from thH Commission concerning who will be paid and how much in back pay each person will bl~ paid.
VI. POSTING OF NOTICE Snack Vending will post the notice attached to this decree for thirty days in conspicuous places on its premises where notices to employees am customarily posted. Within ten days after the entry of this decree Snack Vending will send a letter to Carson Owen, at the address indicated above, verifying that the notice has been posted.
VII. ADVERTISING JOB VACANCIES Each time Snack Vending places an advertisement in the newspaper for a route driver position it will also send a notice of job opportunities to the Arkansas Employment Security Division (AESD). Both the notices to AESD and each of the newspaper advertisements will state that Snack Vending is an equal opportunity employer.
VIII. RECORD KEEPING Snack Vending will give each person who inquires about employment an Application for Employment (employment application) and the Employment Applicant EEO Data Form (data form) which is attached to this agreement. The data form will be
3

separated from the employment application as soon as the employment application is received, and the data form will be used only to report information concerning the applicant to Plaintiff as required by this decree. None of the informatio.1 on the data form will be provided to the individuals who make hiring decisions.
Each time a hiring decision is made the person who makes the hiring decision will record in writing the reason(s) the applicant was selected for the vacancy.
All personnel and employment records made or kept by Snack Vending (including but not necessarily limited to application forms submitted by applicants and other records having to do with hiring) will be preserved by Snack Vending throughout the duration of this decree (seven years) and then for a period of one year from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later, as required by 29 C.F.R. §1602.14.
IX. REPORTING Snack Vending will submit a report to Carson L. Owen, at the address indicated above, six months after the execution of this agreement, and every six months thereafter during the duration of this agreement (seven years). Each report will contain:
1. The name, race, and date of hire for each employee hired as a route driver during the previous six months;
2. A copy of each notice to AESD and each newspaper advertisement concerning route driver job vacancies during the previous six months; and
3. A copy of each data form received during the previous six months.
4

X" ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS With the exception of the $6,150.00 payment of attorney's fees described in the Individual Remedies portion of this decree, EEOC, Mr. Storay, and Snack Vending will each bear its own attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action.
(Concluded on next page.)
5

SO ORDERED this

I

S

1#
day

of

__~ ~L---_-I'-_

,2000.

ST PHEN M. REASONER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Consented to on behalf of the respective parties:

FOR PLAINTIFF EEOC:

FOR DEFENDANT:

C. GREGORY STEWART General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

~~/"z:~ JOHN STEVEN HOFFMAN, President SNACK VENDING COMPANY, INC.

KATHARINE W. KORES Regional Attorney
T~E!lR~K. tuck
Supervisory Trial Attorney
.~L~-===
CARSON L. OWEN Senior Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1407 Union Avenue, Suite 621 Memphis, Tennessee 38104 Telephone No. (901) 544-0133

A%L~ ~J~A~~~_
ROBERTNEW~
P.O. Box 149 Little Rock, AR 72203-014~1 Telephone No. (501) 372-5577 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
'---p- CHRIST HER GO ICKER
HARRILL & SUTTER, P. . .C.
P.O. Box 26321 Little Rock, AR 72221 Telephone No. (501) 224-1050 ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Memphis District Office

1407 Union Avenue, Suite 621

Memphis, TN 38104 (901) 544-0115
TTY (901) 544-0112 FAX (901) 544-0111

NOTICE

This Notice is being posted as part of a settlement agreement bEltween Snack

Vending Company, Inc. (Snack Vending) and the United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits

employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; sections of the Civil Rights

Act of 1991; and Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which prohibits

discrimination against people with disabilities.

Snack Vending supports and will comply with these Federal laws in all respects,

and will not take any action against employees or applicants for employment because

they have exercised their rights under the law by complaining about discrimination or

by filing a discrimination charge with EEOC.

A former employee of ours filed a discrimination charge with EEOC complaining

about being denied a route driver job because of his race. EEOC filed a lawsuit against

us in which it claimed that we discriminated against Blacks in hiring for route driver jobs.

Settlement amounts have been paid to each of the individuals EEOC claims were

discriminated against.

Steve Hoffman, President Snack Vending Company, Inc.

EMPLOYMENT APPLICANT EEO DATA FORM

This form is being used in cooperation with The United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to report to EEOC the race of Snack Vending's

applicants for employment. It will be separated from your employment application as

soon as it is received, and none of the information on it will be used in making hiring

decisions.

Today's Date:

Month

Day _

Year

Name:

Address:

Race:

Black

Type of job you are applying for:

White

Other

bt UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas U.s. Post Office & Court House 600 West Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325
May 16, 2000
* * MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * *
Re: 4:98-cv-00834.
True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the following:
Christopher Gomlicker, Esq. Harrill & Sutter, P.L.L.C. 310 Natural Resources Drive Post Office Box 26321 Little Rock, AR 72221-6321
Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq. Harrill & Sutter, P.L.L.C. 310 Natural Resources Drive Post Office Box 26321 Little Rock, AR 72221-6321
Robert A. Newcomb, Esq. Attorney at Law Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1700 Post Office Box 149 Little Rock, AR 72203-0149
Pamela B. Dixon, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 625 Little Rock, AR 72201
Carson L. Owen, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104
Terry Beck, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621

Memphis, TN 38104
Katharine W. Kores, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104
cc: press

Date:

5/16/00

James W. McCormack, Clerk
BTyree BY:

 
 CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE - Docket Report

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?635830255938106-L_3...

DISC, JWC, TERMED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:98-cv-00834-SMR

EEOC v. Snack Vending Co Inc Assigned to: Judge Stephen M. Reasoner Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 12/21/1998 Date Terminated: 05/15/2000 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Carson L. Owen Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104 (901) 544-0133 Email: carson.owen@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katharine W. Kores Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104 (901) 544-0135 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pamela B. Dixon Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Little Rock 820 Louisiana Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-5065 Email: pamela.dixon@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terry Beck Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Memphis 1407 Union Avenue

1 of 4

5/29/2007 2:51 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE - Docket Report

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?635830255938106-L_3...

Intervenor Plaintiff Robert Storay
V. Defendant Snack Vending Company, Inc.

Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104 (901) 544-0138 Email: terry.beck@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Gomlicker Harrill & Sutter, P.L.L.C. Post Office Box 21098 Little Rock, AR 72221-1098 (501) 224-1050 Email: cgomlicker@aristotle.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Luther Oneal Sutter Harrill & Sutter, P.L.L.C. Post Office Box 21098 Little Rock, AR 72221-1098 (501) 224-1050 Email: rautry@aristotle.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert A. Newcomb Law Office of Robert A. Newcomb Post Office Box 149 Little Rock, AR 72203-0149 (501) 372-5577 Email: robertnwcmb@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed
12/21/1998
01/07/1999 01/29/1999 01/29/1999

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT w/jury demand; no summons issued (former empl) (Entered: 12/21/1998)
2 FIRST REQUEST by plaintiff for Admissions (vjt) (Entered: 01/08/1999) 3 RESPONSE by deft to requests for admission [2-1] (vjt) (Entered: 02/01/1999) 4 ANSWER by defendant (vjt) (Entered: 02/01/1999)

2 of 4

5/29/2007 2:51 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE - Docket Report

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?635830255938106-L_3...

02/01/1999 03/30/1999 03/30/1999 04/12/1999 04/28/1999 11/02/1999
12/06/1999 12/28/1999 01/11/2000 01/26/2000 02/03/2000 02/09/2000 02/14/2000 02/24/2000 02/29/2000 05/09/2000
05/15/2000

5 WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS upon defendant Snack Vending Co Inc on 1/5/99 (former empl) (Entered: 02/02/1999)
6 MOTION by defendant to strike class allegations (bmt) (Entered: 03/31/1999)
7 BRIEF by defendant in support of motion to strike class allegations [6-1] (bmt) (Entered: 03/31/1999)
8 STATEMENT by plaintiff in opposition to motion to strike class allegations [6-1] (bmt) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
9 NOTICE by defendant of taking deposition of Robert Storay and Margaret Dudash on 6/8/99 (bmt) (Entered: 04/28/1999)
10 SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC); jury trial set for 9:30 5/15/00 in Little Rock; discovery due 3/30/00; pretrial info sheet due 4/17/00 (cc: all counsel) (bmt) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
11 MOTION by movant Robert Storay to intervene (bmt) (Entered: 12/07/1999)
12 RESPONSE by defendant to motion to intervene [11-1] (bmt) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
13 REPLY brief by movant Robert Storay in support of motion to intervene [11-1] (bmt) (Entered: 01/12/2000)
14 ORDER by Judge Stephen M. Reasoner granting motion to intervene of Robert Storay [11-1] (cc: all counsel) (bmt) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
15 ORDER by Judge Stephen M. Reasoner denying motion to strike class allegations [6-1] (cc: all counsel) lej) (Entered: 02/04/2000)
16 ANSWER by defendant to complaint in intervention lej) (Entered: 02/10/2000)
17 COMPLAINT in intervention by intervenor plaintiff lej) (Entered: 02/14/2000)
18 MOTION by defendant to continue trial lej) (Entered: 02/24/2000)
19 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff by Pamela B Dixon (bmt) (Entered: 03/01/2000)
20 SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC) granting motion to continue trial [18-1]; jury trial continued until 9:30 8/28/00 in Little Rock; discovery cutoff extended to 7/3/00; pretrial info sheet due by 7/31/00 (cc: all counsel) (bmt) (Entered: 05/10/2000)
21 CONSENT DECREE: by Judge Stephen M. Reasoner parties have agreed to settle all claims involved in case; deft and its supervisors, managers, officers, directors, agents, and successors are enjoined from discriminating against employees because of their race; w/in 30 days after entry of this decree, deft will pay to Robert Storay $6,150.00 in atty's fees and $20,000.00 in back pay, less normal payroll tax deductions; also w/in 30 days after the entry of this decree, deft will pay a total of $110,000.00 in back pay, less normal payroll tax deductions to the other identified victims of discrimination in accordance with instruction from the Commission concerning who will be paid and how much in back pay each person will be paid; parties will each bear their own attys' fees and

3 of 4

5/29/2007 2:51 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE - Docket Report

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?635830255938106-L_3...

costs incurred (cc: all counsel) (bmt) (Entered: 05/16/2000)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/29/2007 14:53:51

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

eeoc 4:98-cv-00834-SMR 0.16

4 of 4

5/29/2007 2:51 PM