US v. New York City Housing Authority

Page 1 of 11

MARY JO WHITE United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: NEIL M. CORWIN (NC-6306) ERIC B. FISHER (EF-7758) Assistant United States Attorneys 100 Church Street, 19th Floor New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 637-2707 Facsimile: (212) 637-2825
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------x
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
01 Civ.
- v. -
CITY OF NEW YORK and NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiff, United States of America (the "United States"), upon information and belief, alleges for its complaint as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This is an action brought by the United States to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended ("Title VII").
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.
3. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/nychousingcomp.htm

8/13/2007

US v. New York City Housing Authority

Page 2 of 11

THE PARTIES
4. Defendant, the City of New York (the "City"), is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
5. Defendant, New York City Housing Authority (the "Housing Authority"), is a public authority created by N.Y. Public Housing Law § 401 to afford subsidized public housing to low-income City residents.
6. The Housing Authority is an employer, or an agent of an employer, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
7. Plaintiff, the United States, is authorized under Title VII to commence suit against the City and the Housing Authority in connection with individual charges of employment discrimination that are referred to the Department of Justice ("DOJ") by the New York District Office of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") pursuant to Title VII.
8. Tammy Auer, Tonja McGhee, Maria Gonzalez and Theresa Caldwell-Benjamin (collectively, the "individual complainants") are female participants in the City's Work Experience Program ("WEP") who filed employment discrimination charges with the EEOC under Title VII that were referred to DOJ by the EEOC.
FEDERAL WELFARE REFORM AND THE CITY'S WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM
9. WEP is a City program designed to comply with certain eligibility requirements of the federal welfare reform act known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (the "PRWORA"), Pub. L. No. 104-93, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996).
10. The PRWORA created a block grant system, known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families ("TANF"), to provide grants to states that implement programs designed to end the dependence of public assistance recipients on government welfare benefits.
11. TANF replaced the pre-PRWORA public assistance entitlement known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children ("AFDC").
12. Pursuant to the PRWORA, states are required to submit a plan to the United States Department of Health and Human Services that ensures that parents and caretakers receiving TANF benefits engage in work activities.
13. The PRWORA affords the states flexibility in fashioning their work programs.
14. New York State administers its participation in the TANF program through local social service districts, including the City's Human Resources Administration ("HRA").
15. The City, through HRA, administers WEP.
16. WEP is a program designed to meet the eligibility requirements of the PRWORA.
17. Recipients of TANF benefits participate in WEP.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/nychousingcomp.htm

8/13/2007

US v. New York City Housing Authority

Page 3 of 11

18. WEP participants are assigned by HRA to work for participating institutions, such as City agencies, public authorities and non-profit agencies.
19. Typical WEP work assignments include maintenance and clerical tasks.
20. The number of hours that a WEP participant is required to work is determined by dividing the amount of his or her TANF benefit by the minimum wage.
21. The participating institution to which a WEP participant is assigned is responsible for supervising the WEP participant.
22. Among other things, the participating institution to which a WEP participant is assigned establishes a weekly work schedule, trains the WEP participant and assigns the WEP participant to perform specific tasks within the institution.
23. A WEP participant's receipt of TANF benefits is contingent on the WEP participant's compliance with the terms of his or her WEP assignment.
24. WEP participants who, without good cause, fail to comply with the terms of their assignments can have their benefits reduced or terminated.
25. WEP participants who are injured during the course of their WEP assignment are covered by workers compensation.
26. WEP participants are reimbursed for their transportation costs to and from their WEP assignments.
27. WEP participants are reimbursed for authorized child care expenses.
28. WEP supervisors at the participating institutions are required to provide WEP participants with regular evaluations.
THE DISCRIMINATION SUFFERED BY THE COMPLAINANTS
29. The individual complainants were subjected to hostile work environments in violation of Title VII at their respective WEP work assignments.
30. In addition, defendants failed or refused to take reasonable action to prevent or promptly correct the discriminatory treatment of the individual complainants.
Tammy Auer
31. In or about January 1997, the HRA assigned Tammy Auer, a WEP participant, to work at the City's Department of Sanitation ("DOS").
32. DOS assigned Ms. Auer to do general office work at its Staten Island Borough Office.
33. Ms. Auer was supervised by Assistant Borough Superintendent James Soto.
34. From January 1997 until the summer of 1997, Ms. Auer's supervisor, Mr. Soto, repeatedly made inappropriate comments that were directed at Ms. Auer because of her sex.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/nychousingcomp.htm

8/13/2007

US v. New York City Housing Authority

Page 4 of 11

35. For example, on her first day of work, Mr. Soto asked Ms. Auer whether she had a boyfriend.
36. Thereafter, on numerous occasions, Mr. Soto asked Ms. Auer to go on vacation with him and to move in with him.
37. Mr. Soto also told Ms. Auer, on numerous occasions, that together they could make a "beautiful baby."
38. On a daily basis, Mr. Soto would direct Ms. Auer into his office and demand that she turn around so that Mr. Soto could see what she was wearing that day and comment on her appearance.
39. During the summer of 1997, Ms. Auer took an approved leave of absence from her WEP assignment.
40. In the fall of 1997, HRA once again assigned Ms. Auer to work under Mr. Soto's supervision at the DOS's Staten Island Borough Office.
41. During the next few months, Mr. Soto resumed making inappropriate comments to Ms. Auer on a regular basis.
42. In the spring of 1998, Mr. Soto engaged in unwanted touching of Ms. Auer on several occasions.
43. Ms. Auer told Mr. Soto not to touch her, but he did not listen to her.
44. On several occasions, Mr. Soto warned Ms. Auer that he had the authority to terminate her WEP assignment.
45. In 1998, Ms. Auer complained to James Wynne, the new DOS Borough Commissioner about Mr. Soto's conduct toward her.
46. The City took no action in response to Ms. Auer's complaints to Mr. Wynne, and Mr. Soto's harassing conduct toward her continued.
47. In July 1998, Ms. Auer went to DOS's Manhattan offices to complain about Mr. Soto's conduct.
48. Following the July 1998 complaint, Ms. Auer was assigned to a different DOS facility on Staten Island.
49. Mr. Soto had supervisory responsibility over Ms. Auer's new work site as well.
50. When Mr. Soto learned that Ms. Auer was at this new work site, he drove over to the site and screamed at her.
51. Soon thereafter, Mr. Soto instructed Ms. Auer's supervisor not to give her any work to do.
52. On July 22, 1998, Ms. Auer told her supervisor that she was quitting because of the way in which she had been treated.
53. During the course of her WEP assignment, Ms. Auer was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of her sex that adversely affected the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/nychousingcomp.htm

8/13/2007

US v. New York City Housing Authority

Page 5 of 11

54. Ms. Auer filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC on November 11, 1998.
55. In its determination dated September 29, 1999, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the allegations in Ms. Auer's charge were true.
56. The EEOC referred Ms. Auer's charge to DOJ.
Tonja McGhee
57. In or about April 1998, HRA assigned Tonja McGhee, a WEP participant, to work for the Housing Authority.
58. After an approximate three-month stint as an office worker for the Housing Authority, Ms. McGhee was reassigned by the Housing Authority to a maintenance job at the Roosevelt Houses in Brooklyn.
59. At the Roosevelt Houses, Ms. McGhee was supervised by Choice Bennett.
60. Within a month of Ms. McGhee's assignment to the Roosevelt Houses, Mr. Bennett began a consensual sexual relationship with Ms. McGhee.
61. In or about August 1998, Ms. McGhee broke off her relationship with Mr. Bennett.
62. After Ms. McGhee broke off her relationship with Mr. Bennett, he began to harass her in a number of ways.
63. Mr. Bennett called Ms. McGhee at home on a daily basis, threatening that he was "going to get" her if she did not resume her relationship with him.
64. On numerous occasions, Mr. Bennett falsely told his superior, Matthew Algozino, that Ms. McGhee was not doing her work.
65. In or about October 1998, Mr. Bennett directed Ms. McGhee to enter his office, turned off the lights and told Ms. McGhee to take her pants down.
66. Ms. McGhee refused and ran out of Mr. Bennett's office.
67. On several occasions, Ms. McGhee complained to Thomas Daniels, Mr. Bennett's supervisor, about Mr. Bennett's harassing conduct.
68. Neither the City nor the Housing Authority took any action in response to Ms. McGhee's complaints to Mr. Daniels.
69. Ms. McGhee also complained to John Quintana, a WEP coordinator, about Mr. Bennett's harassing conduct.
70. Neither the City nor the Housing Authority took any action in response to Ms. McGhee's complaints to Mr. Quintana.
71. Ms. McGhee also complained to Matthew Algozino in or about January 1999.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/nychousingcomp.htm

8/13/2007

US v. New York City Housing Authority

Page 6 of 11

72. Mr. Algozino arranged to transfer Ms. McGhee to the Sumner Houses, which are located several blocks away from the Roosevelt Houses.
73. After Ms. McGhee's transfer to the Sumner Houses, Mr. Bennett continued to call her and to threaten her.
74. Ms. McGhee complained to her supervisor at the Sumner Houses, Mr. Robinson, about Mr. Bennett's continuing harassment.
75. Neither the City nor the Housing Authority took any action in response to Ms. McGhee's complaint to Mr. Robinson.
76. Accordingly, in or about May 1999, when the harassment continued, Ms. McGhee stopped working at the Sumner Houses.
77. During the course of her WEP assignment, Ms. McGhee was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of her sex that adversely affected the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment.
78. Ms. McGhee filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC on June 17, 1999.
79. In its determination dated October 5, 1999, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the allegations in Ms. McGhee's charge were true.
80. The EEOC referred Ms. McGhee's charge to DOJ.
Maria Gonzalez
81. In or about the spring of 1997, Maria Gonzalez, a WEP participant, was assigned to a clerical position at HRA's offices at 250 Church Street, New York, New York.
82. During her WEP assignment, Ms. Gonzalez was supervised by Gregory Payne, an HRA employee.
83. Ms. Gonzalez's work responsibilities were clerical in nature.
84. Within the first week after Ms. Gonzalez began working under Mr. Payne's supervision, he began touching her without her consent.
85. During her first week of work, Mr. Payne attempted to grope Ms. Gonzalez in the area of her genitals, but she pushed him away.
86. After that, he frequently touched and twirled her hair and blew on her neck.
87. On several occasions when she wore long skirts, Mr. Payne would tug at her skirt and tell Ms. Gonzalez that the skirt "made it easier for [him] to get at her."
88. Because she rebuffed his advances, Mr. Payne subjected Ms. Gonzalez to a barrage of verbal abuse.
89. On numerous occasions, Mr. Payne called Ms. Gonzalez a "lesbian," a "bitch" and "hideous."

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/nychousingcomp.htm

8/13/2007

US v. New York City Housing Authority

Page 7 of 11

90. Mr. Payne also told Ms. Gonzalez on several occasions that "all [she] need[ed] was a man."
91. Mr. Payne frequently called Ms. Gonzalez at her home; when she answered the phone, he would curse at her and harass her.
92. Mr. Payne began taking Ms. Gonzalez's time cards in order to make it difficult for her to verify the hours she was working.
93. Ms. Gonzalez complained to Robert Estelle, Mr. Payne's supervisor, about Mr. Payne's conduct toward her.
94. Mr. Estelle told Ms. Gonzalez that she would have to deal directly with Mr. Payne to resolve the matter.
95. The City did not take any action in response to Ms. Gonzalez's complaint to Mr. Estelle.
96. In or about January 1999, the HRA office where Ms. Gonzalez and Mr. Payne worked was relocated to 60 Hudson Street.
97. On their first day at this new location, Mr. Payne cornered Ms. Gonzalez in an office and grabbed at her in an attempt to kiss her.
98. On two occasions in or about February and March 1999, Mr. Payne arrived at work intoxicated and threatened to have Ms. Gonzalez killed.
99. In or about March 1999, Ms. Gonzalez complained to Robert Fox, another of Mr. Payne's supervisors, about Mr. Payne's harassment of her.
100. Mr. Fox told Ms. Gonzalez to put her complaint in writing.
101. When Ms. Gonzalez returned to Mr. Fox with a written complaint, he transferred her to a different work location at 260 11th Avenue.
102. When Ms. Gonzalez reported to the 260 11th Avenue location, she was told that there was no need for a WEP worker at this location, and she was transferred to a different location.
103. Ms. Gonzalez stopped working as a WEP employee because of the poor working conditions at this new location.
104. During the course of her WEP assignment, Ms. Gonzalez was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of her sex that adversely affected the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment.
105. Following her complaints to Mr. Estelle and Mr. Fox, Ms. Gonzalez was the subject of retaliation.
106. Because of her complaint about Mr. Payne's harassing behavior, Ms. Gonzalez was subjected to death threats and continuing harassment from Mr. Payne.
107. Because of her complaint about Mr. Payne's harassing behavior, Ms Gonzalez was transferred to an

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/nychousingcomp.htm

8/13/2007

US v. New York City Housing Authority

Page 8 of 11

unfavorable location with extremely poor working conditions.
108. Ms. Gonzalez filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC on April 29, 1999.
109. In its determination dated September 29, 1999, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the allegations in Ms. Gonzalez's charge were true.
110. The EEOC referred Ms. Gonzalez's charge to DOJ.
Theresa Caldwell-Benjamin
111. Theresa Caldwell-Benjamin is an African-American woman.
112. In or about July 1996, HRA assigned Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin, a WEP participant, to work for the City's Department of Parks ("Parks Department").
113. Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin's work responsibilities involved general maintenance at City parks on Staten Island.
114. In or about March 1998, Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin was assigned to paint the interior of a two-story building, known as the Forestry, which was operated by the Parks Department on Staten Island.
115. On the first day of her assignment at the Forestry, Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin observed a noose hanging in one of the windows.
116. On the first day of her assignment at the Forestry, Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin also observed a drawing taped to one of the walls with racist caricatures of a black man and boy. 117. Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin complained to her WEP supervisor, Myrna Ramirez, a Parks Department employee, about the noose and caricature.
118. Ms. Ramirez told Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin that the other Parks Department employees "didn't mean anything by it."
119. The City did not take any action in response to Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin's complaint to Ms. Ramirez.
120. The noose remained in the window during the entire week that Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin painted the Forestry's interior.
121. The racist caricature was removed when the wall upon which it was taped was being painted, but was put back up after the painting was completed.
122. During the course of her WEP assignment, Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of her race that adversely affected the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment.
123. Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC on December 29, 1998 and an amended charge on July 29, 1999.
124. In its determination dated October 4, 1999, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/nychousingcomp.htm

8/13/2007

US v. New York City Housing Authority

Page 9 of 11

allegations in Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin's charge were true.
125. The EEOC referred Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin's charge to DOJ.
Conditions Precedent to Suit
126. Each individual complainant filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC.
127. The EEOC has found reasonable cause to believe that the allegations in each individual complainant's charge are true.
128. The EEOC has referred each complainant's charge of discrimination to DOJ after being unable to secure a conciliation agreement acceptable to the EEOC.
129. All conditions precedent to the filing of this suit have been satisfied.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
First Claim for Relief - Hostile Work Environment (Tammy Auer)
130. Paragraphs 1 through 132 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
131. The City discriminated against Tammy Auer on the basis of her sex in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by engaging in and permitting acts that created a hostile work environment and that adversely affected the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment.
132. The City knew or should have known of the discriminatory treatment of Ms. Auer.
133. The City failed or refused to take reasonable action to prevent or promptly correct the discriminatory treatment of Ms. Auer.
134. Ms. Auer has suffered injuries as a result of the City's discriminatory treatment.
Second Claim for Relief -- Hostile Work Environment (Theresa Caldwell-Benjamin)
135. Paragraphs 1 through 132 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
136. The City has discriminated against Theresa Caldwell-Benjamin on the basis of her race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by engaging in and permitting acts that created a hostile work environment and that adversely affected the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment.
137. The City knew or should have known of the discriminatory treatment of Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin.
138. The City failed or refused to take reasonable action to prevent or promptly correct the discriminatory treatment of Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin.
139. Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin has suffered injuries as a result of the City's discriminatory treatment.
Third Claim for Relief - Hostile Work Environment (Tonja McGhee)

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/nychousingcomp.htm

8/13/2007

US v. New York City Housing Authority

Page 10 of 11

140. Paragraphs 1 through 132 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
141. The City and the Housing Authority discriminated against Tonja McGhee on the basis of her sex in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by engaging in and permitting acts that created a hostile work environment and that adversely affected the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment.
142. The City and the Housing Authority knew or should have known of the discriminatory treatment of Ms. McGhee.
143. The City and the Housing Authority failed or refused to take reasonable action to prevent or promptly correct the discriminatory treatment of Ms. McGhee.
144. Ms. McGhee has suffered injuries as a result of the City and the Housing Authority's discriminatory treatment.
Fourth Claim for Relief - Hostile Work Environment (Maria Gonzalez)
145. Paragraphs 1 through 132 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
146. The City discriminated against Maria Gonzalez on the basis of her sex in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by engaging in and permitting acts that created a hostile work environment and that adversely affected the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment.
147. The City knew or should have known of the discriminatory treatment of Ms. Gonzalez.
148. The City failed or refused to take reasonable action to prevent or promptly correct the discriminatory treatment of Ms. Gonzalez.
149. Ms. Gonzalez has suffered injuries as a result of the City's discriminatory treatment.
Fifth Claim for Relief -- Retaliation (Maria Gonzalez)
150. Paragraphs 1 through 132 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
151. The City retaliated against Maria Gonzalez in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 by taking adverse action against her because of her complaints of sexual harassment at her WEP assignment.
152. The City knew or should have known of the acts of retaliation against Ms. Gonzalez.
153. The City failed or refused to take reasonable action to prevent or promptly correct the acts of retaliation against Ms. Gonzalez.
154. Ms. Gonzalez has suffered injuries as a result of the City's discriminatory treatment.
Jury Demand
155. The United States hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
WHEREFORE, the United States, prays that this Court enter judgment:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/nychousingcomp.htm

8/13/2007

US v. New York City Housing Authority

Page 11 of 11

A. awarding compensatory damages to the individual complainants to fully compensate them for injuries caused by defendants' discriminatory conduct;
B. enjoining defendants, their agents, employees, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with defendants, from engaging in discriminatory employment practices in the Work Experience Program;
C. directing defendants to take such affirmative steps as may be necessary to prevent and to remedy employment discrimination in the Work Experience Program; and
D. granting such further relief as the Court may deem just, together with the United States' costs and disbursements in this action.
Dated: New York, New York
___________ __, 2001
JOHN D. ASHCROFT Attorney General
By: ____________________________
WILLIAM R. YEOMANS Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
MARY JO WHITE United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York
By: ____________________________
NEIL M. CORWIN (NC-6306) ERIC B. FISHER (EF-7758)
Assistant United States Attorney Telephone: (212) 637-2701 Facsimile: (212) 637-2825

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/nychousingcomp.htm

8/13/2007

 
 (A Jb-;S;

UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRlCT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - x UNITED STATES OF AMERlCA,

Plaintiff,

TAMMY AUER, MARlA GONZALEZ, and THERESA CALDWELL-BENJAMIN,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,

CONSENT DECREE
01 eiv. 4604 CReC)

-against-

CITY OF NEW YORK,

Defendant.
------------------------------------x
WHEREAS, the United States of America (the "United States") brought this action under

its authority, pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 2000c-5, to commence suit against an employer when the

Attorney General of the United States has reasonable cause to believe that the"employer has

violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title

VII") by engaging in an unlawful employment practice;

WHEREAS, the United States alleges in its complaint that the City ofNew York (the

"City" or "Defendant") engaged in unlawful employment practices by subjecting Tammy Auer,

Maria Gonzalez, and Theresa Caldwell-Benjamin, former participants in the City's Work

Experience Program ("WEP"), to hostile work environments in violation of Title VII;

WHEREAS, Tammy Auer, Maria Gonzalez, and Theresa Caldwell-Benjamin (the

"plaintiff-intervenors") have each file.d complaints On their own behalf intervening in this action;

1

WHEREAS, the United States and plaintiff-intervenors further allege that the City failed or refused to take reasonable action to prevent or promptly correct the discriminatory treatment of the plaintiff-intervenors;
WHEREAS, the City denies each and every allegation in the respective complaints and admits no fault or liability, and specifically denies that it has engaged in unlawful employment practices, denies that it has subjected Tammy Auer, Maria Gonzalez, or Theresa CaldwellBenjamin to hostile work environments in violation of Title VII, and denies that it has failed or refused to take reasonable action to prevent or promptly correct any alleged discriminatory treatment of the plaintiff-intervenors;
WHEREAS, the City specifically denies that the Attorney General of the United States has reasonable cause to believe that the City has violated Title VII by failing or refusing to take reasonable action to prevent or promptly correct any alleged discriminatory treatment of the plaintiff-intervenors;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City's Work Experience Program, individuals are assigned work at City agencies, as defined below;
WHEREAS, the plaintiff-intervenors were WEP participants working at City agencies; WHEREAS, the parties, having the mutual goal of ensuring that WEP participants are protected from discrimination, and desiring to settle this action and to avoid protracted, expensive and unnecessary litigation, agree to the entry of this Consent Decree to resolve all issues that were or could have been raised by the United States and/or the plaintiff-intervenors in their respective complaints;
2

NOW, THEREFORE, in resolution ofthe complaints of the United States and the plaintiff-intervenors, and with agreement of all parties, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows: I. DEFINITIONS
As used in this Consent Decree, the following terms (whether capitalized or in lowercase) shall have the following meanings:
(a) A "City agency" refers to any agency over which the City's Department of Citywide Administrative Services ("DCAS") currently exercises oversight authority regarding Equal Employment Opportunity issues. IfDCAS's oversight authority regarding Equal Employment Opportunity issues expands to include additional agencies during the term of this Consent Decree, then those additional agencies will become City agencies for purposes of this Consent Decree at the time DCAS's oversight authority becomes applicable to these agencies.
(b) "City EEO Policy" refers to the City of New York Equal Employment Opportunity Policy that was issued in 2005.
(c) "EEO Officer" ofa City agency refers to the City official so designated by that City agency, some of whom are 'listed as "Agency EEO Officers" on the website maintained by DCAS at www.nyc.govlhtrnlldcaslhtrnllresourcesleeooffs.shtrnL
(d) The "effective date of this Consent Decree" refers to the date this Consent Decree is entered on the docket.
3

(e) The "term of this Consent Decree" refers to the entire period oftirne during which

the Court retains jurisdiction under the Consent Decree as set forth in Section II

of this Consent Decree.

(1) "WEP participant" refers to an individual assigned work through the City's Work

Experience Program pursuant to New York Social Services Law § 336(1)(d).

II. DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION SOLELY FOR PURPOSE OF ENFORCEl\'IENT

1.

The complaint of the United States and the complaints ofplaintiff~intervenors are hereby

dismissed \vith prejUdice. The Court shall·retain jurisdiction over the parties and this

action for TWO years after the effective date of this Consent Decree solely for the purpose

of enforcing and administering its terms. This Consent Decree shall terminate two years

after its effective date.

III. INDIVIDUAL RELIEF

2. The City agrees to pay Tammy Auer $110,000 in full satisfaction ofal! claims that were

or could have been raised in this action, including claims for costs, expenses and

attorneys' fees. In consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiff~intervenor Auer

agrees to dismissal of all claims against the City, and agrees to release the City and all

present or former officials, employees, representatives or agents of the City from any and

all liability, claims or rights of action arising from the allegations set forth in her

complaint, and the complaint of the United States, including claims for costs, expenses

and attorneys' fees.

4

3. Plaintiff-intervenor Auer shall execute and deliver to the City's attorney all documents necessary to effect this settlement, including without limitation, a release based on the terms ofparagraph 2 above and an affidavit regarding liens,
4. The City agrees to pay Maria Gonzalez $40,000 in full satisfaction of all claims that were
or could have been raised in this action, including claims for costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. In consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiff-intervenor Gonzalez agrees to dismissal of all claims against the City, and agrees to release the City and all present or fonner officials, employees, representatives or agents of the City from any and all liability, claims or rights of action arising from the allegations set forth in her complaint, and the complaint of the United States, including claims for costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. 5. Plaintiff-intervenor Gonzalez shall execute and deliver to the City's attorney all documents necessary to effect this settlement, including without limitation, a release based on the tenns ofparagraph 4 above and an affidavit regarding liens. 6. The City agrees to pay Theresa Caldwell-Benjamin $18,000 in full satisfaction of all claims that were or could have been raised in this action, including claims for costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. In consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiffintervenor Caldwell-Benjamin agrees to dismissal of all claims against the City, and agrees to release the City and all present or former officials, employees, representatives or agents of the City from any and all liability, claims or rights of action arising from the allegations set forth in her complaint, and the complaint of the United States, including claims for costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.
5

7. Plaintiff-intervenor Caldwell-Benjamin shall execute and deliver to the City's attorney all documents necessary to effect this settlement, including without limitation, a release based on the terms ofparagraph 6 above and an affidavit regarding Hens.
IV. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF A. CONTENT OF NOTICE 8. As described below, the City shall prepare a notice (the "Notice") to be disseminated as
described below in sections IV.B-F. The contents of the Notice are intended to inform all employees at City agencies that assign work to WEP participants and all WEP participants who work at City agencies of the following: a. These vVEP participants are protected from unlawful employment discrimination
under Title VII of the Civil rughts Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"); the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. ("ADA"), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et Jl.!l9., ("ADEA"). Accordingly, these \\o'EP participants have the right to a workplace that is free of discrimination, including harassment, based on race, COIOT, national origin, religion, gender, disability, or age, as provided for in the above laws. b. All persons who direct or oversee the performance ofWEP participants performing work assignments at City agencies are required to treat WEP participants in a manner consistent 'With the treatment of City employees mandated by Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA.
6

c. If any WEP participant who receives the Notice believes that he or she has been discriminated against or harassed in violation of Title VII, the ADA, or the ADEA, he or she may have the right to file a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10004, (212) 336-3620, TTY: (212) 336-3622, website: www.eeoc.gov.
B. DISTRIRUTION OF THE NOTICE TO CITY EMPLOYEES 9. Within ninety (90) days after the effective date ofthis Consent Decree, the City shall
distribute the Notice or a document incorporating the provisions of the Notice to all employees at City agencies that assign work to WEP participants, and to all WEP participants who work at City agencies. 10. The City shall distribute the Notice or a document incorporating the provisions of the Notice to all employees at City agencies that assign work to WEP participants approximately one year after the distribution provided for by paragraph 9. The City may, bnt is not required to, distribute the Notice required by this paragraph to WEP participants, who will already be receiving the Notice pursuant to paragraphs 9 and 16. 11. To comply with the obligations of paragraphs 9 and 10, the City may, but is not required te, distribute a document incorporating the provisions of the Notice to all City employees, including, but not limited to, all employees at City agencies that assign work to WEP participants.
7

12. The City shall post the Notice or a document incorporating the provisions of the Notice on the DCAS website, see www.nyc.govlhtrnlidcaslhtrnliresourcesleeopol.shtrnl.at which the City's EEO Policy is also maintained.
C. EEO PUBLICATIONS 13. The City shall include the provisions of the Notice as part of an addendum to the City's
publication "About EEO: What You May Not Know." 14. lfthe City revises, modifies, changes, or re-issues the City EEO policy during the term of
this Consent Decree, the City shnll include the provisions of the Notice as part of the City EEO policy. D. EEO TRAINL"G 15. Within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this Consent Decree and annually thereafter during the term of this Consent Decree, the City shall instruct the EEO Officer at each City agency that assigos work to WEP participants that: the information
contained in the Notice or a document incorporating the provisions of the Notice should
be incorporated in EEO training of the agency's employees, including managers and supervisory employees concerning hostile work environments andlor harassment based on race, color, national origin, religion, gender, disability, or age. E. WEP ORIENTATION MAl'11UAL 16. Each City agency shall include the Notice or the provisions of the Notice in its Vv'EP Orientation Manual or any eqnivalent publication that is provided to WEP participants during their orientation andlor introduction to WEP at the City agencies that assign work to WEP participants.
8

F. CITY AGENCIES THAT ASSIGN WORK TO WEP PARTICIPANTS 17. The City shall distribute the Notice or a document incorporating the provisions of the
Notice to the head of each City agency that assigns work to WEP participants. 18. To the extent that the City'S Human Resources Administration, during the term of this
Consent Decree, enters into an agreement or renews an existing agreement with a City agency governing that agency's use ofWEP participants, such agreement shall be modified to include the Notice or otherwise incOIporate the provisions of the Notice. V. OVERSIGHT PROCESS 19. Within one year of the effective date of this Consent Decree, and one year thereafter, the City shall certify in writing that the requirements of this Consent Decree have been met. In addition, the City shall identi{y the steps taken during that year to comply with this Consent Decree, and shall provide a copy of (a) the Notices or documents otherwise incorporating the provisions of the Notice as required by paragraphs 9,10,13,16, and 17, and (b) any documents containing the instructions required by paragraph 15. VI. MISCELLANEOUS TERMS AND PROVISIONS 20. If any challenge to the Consent Decree arises in any court, the City shall immediately notifY counsel for the United States. 2 L Any amendments or modifications to this Consent Decree shall be in writing and signed by the City and the United States. 22. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to relieve the City of its obligation to comply with any federal, state or city statute or regulation.
9
- - -...- - - - - - - - .....- - - .... ~-

23. Nothing in this Consent Decree limits the authority ofthe United States, pursuant to Title VII or any other applicable statute, to investigate or act upon any complaint of
•
discrimination not covered by tlris Consent Decree that is brought to its attention, from
any sonrce, including but not limited to referrals of complaints by the EEOC, pursuant to
42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5. 24. The United States and the City shall attempt to resolve informally any dispute, concerns,
or perceived violations that may arise under this Consent Decree. To that end, the United States will notify the City in writing of any perceived instances of non-compliance by the City with the Consent Decree's terms. The United States and the City also agree to meet and confer in good faith to discuss such matters and try to resolve them prior to either party seeking Court intervention. 25. Only the United States and the City can enforce the provisions of this Consent Decree, except that each of the plaintiff-intervenors can enforce those provisions of Section III, "Individual Relief," above, that are applicable to her. 26. Any applications to the Court under this Consent Decree shall be on notice to the United States and the City. 27. Nothing contained in tlris Consent Decree shall be deemed to be an admission by the City that it has in any manner or way violated the rights of any person or entity, as defined in the constitutions, statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations of the United States, the State of New York, or the City of New York.
10

28. Copies of all notices, correspondence, reports or documents required to be provided to the United States under this Consent Decree shall be mailed to: United 'States Attorney's Office Southern District ofNew York 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 Attention: Chief, Civil Rights Unit Copies of all notices, correspondence, reports or documents required to be provided to the City under this Consent Decree shall be mailed to: The City of New York Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007-260I Attention: Marilyn Richter
29. Each party acknowledges that it has not relied upon any representations, warranties or statements of any nature whatsoever, whether written or oral, made by any person, except as specifically set forth herein and that this Consent Decree represents the entire agreement of the parties. No prior agreements, oral representations or statements shall be considered a part of this Consent Decree.
30. The parties agree that this Consent Decree is subject to Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It is therefore the parties' understanding that the Consent Decree is not admissible to prove the City's liability for the claims of the United States and plaintiffintervenors that the City engaged in unlawful employment practices by subjecting the plaintiff-intervenors to hostile work environments in violation of Title VIT.
31. Nothing contained in this Consent Decree shall be deemed to constitute a policy or practice of the City or any of its constituent agencies.
II

32. This Consent Decree is not intended to alter the pre-existing rights or obligations of the
parties which are not expressly covered by its terms.
AGREED TO:
MICHAEL J. GARCIA
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Attorneyfor United States ofAmerica
BY: ??£~Ldu.,! NEI M. CORWIN (NC-6306) SARAH S. NORMAND (SN-2834) MELANIE R HALLUMS (MH-6240) Assistant United States Attorneys 86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor New York, New York 10007 Tel: (212) 637-2800

LEGAL MOMENTUM A

r Tammy Auer

BY:

395 Hudson Stree ,5 Floor New York, New York 1000I Tel: (212) 413-7556

DANIEL LEDDY 5 Parkview Place Staten Island, New York 10310

KENNETH W. RICHARDSON Cou elfor Plaintiff-Intervenor Theresa Caldwell-Benjamin
BY:
305 Broadway, Suite 1100 New York, New York 10007 Tel: (212) 962-4277

12

BY:
JA TUCKNER
LLlAM SIPSER 120 Broadway, 18th floor New York, New York 10271 Tel: (212) 766-9100

MICHAEL CARDOZO Corporation Counsel Attorneyfor the Ct ofNew York

BY:

The City of:t-lew York Law Department 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007-2601 Tel: (212) 788-0931

SO ORDERED.

,

UNITED STATES mST CT JUDGE

13

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

.... ~~~~~-..........••..•..

... ~

 
 U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01-cv-04604-RCC

U.S.A., et al v. City of New York, et al Assigned to: Judge Richard C. Casey Demand: $0 Case in other court: 02-06102(L)02-06112(CON) Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 05/31/2001 Date Terminated: 03/13/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff United States of America

represented by Eric B. Fisher Morgenstern Jacbos & Blue, LLC (NY) 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212)750-6776 Fax: (212)750-3128 Email: efisher@mjbllc.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Neil Matthew Corwin U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY (86 Chambers St.) 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 212-637-2200 Fax: 212-637-2717 Email: neil.corwin@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY

V. Defendant City of New York
Defendant New York City Housing Authority

Movant Theresa Cladwell
Intervenor Defendant City of New York Intervenor Defendant New York City Housing Authority Intervenor Plaintiff Tonja McGhee Intervenor Plaintiff Maria E. Gonzalez Movant Tammy Auer

represented by Kenneth Warren Richardson Law Offices of Kenneth W. Richardson 305 Broadway, Suite 1100 NEW YORK, NY 10007 (212)962-4277 Fax: (212) 962-4294 Email: KWRKEN@AOL.COM LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by NOW Legal Defense and Educational Fund 395 Hudson St., 5th fl. New York, NY 10014 (212)925-6635 LEAD ATTORNEY Deborah M. Baumgarten Now Legal Defense and Education Fund 395 Hudson Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10014 (212) 925-6635 Email: deborah.baumgarten@oag.state.ny.us

LEAD ATTORNEY
Martha E. Davis NOW Legal Defense and Educational Fund 395 Hudson St., 5th flr. New York, NY 10014 (212)925-6635 LEAD ATTORNEY
Timothy Joseph Casey NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund 395 Hudson Street New York, NY 10014 (212) 925-6635 LEAD ATTORNEY
Yolanda S. Wu Now Legal Defense and Education Fund 395 Hudson Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10014 (212) 925-6635 LEAD ATTORNEY

Date Filed 05/31/2001 05/31/2001 05/31/2001
06/26/2001
06/29/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed. Summons issued and Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). (db) (Entered: 06/01/2001)

Magistrate Judge Frank Maas is so designated. (db) (Entered: 06/01/2001)

2 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of S/C as to City of New York, N.Y.C. Housing Auth. by Donna Murphy/Marilyn Richter on 5/31/01 . Answer due on 6/20/01 for City of New York, for N.Y.C. Housing Auth. . (cd) (Entered: 06/05/2001)

3 STIPULATION and ORDER, extending time of defts City of New York and New York City Housing Authority to serve their answer to the complaint ; reset answer to the complaint due for 7/20/01 for N.Y.C. Housing Auth., for City of New York . ( signed by Judge Richard C. Casey ) (kg) (Entered: 06/26/2001)

5 NOTICE OF MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) by Theresa

06/29/2001 06/29/2001 06/29/2001 07/02/2001
07/11/2001 07/11/2001 07/19/2001 07/20/2001 07/20/2001

Cladwell, for an order giving permission for Theresa to intervene . Return date 7/11/01. (kw) (Entered: 07/02/2001)
6 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Theresa Cladwell in support of [5-1] motion for an order giving permission for Theresa to intervene. (kw) (Entered: 07/02/2001)
Pretrial Conference held before Judge Richard C. Casey. (sac) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
Status Conference set for 7/19/01 at 4:30 p.m. before Judge Richard C. Casey. (sac) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
4 Civil Case Management Plan: ithis case is to be tried by a jury; joinder of additional parties must be accomplished by 07/30/01; the parties disagree as to whether a deadline should be set for intervenor-plaintiffs. Amended pleadings may be filed until 08/30/01; First request for production of documents, if any, to be served 30 days after discovery commences; Interrogatories purs to Rule 46(a) of the Civil Rules of the SDNY to be served 30 days after discovery commences. depositions to be completed 270 days after discovery commences; Experts, if any, are to be designated 180 days after discovery commences, and experts reports exchanged no later than 210 days after discovery commences; Requests to Admit, if any, are to be served no later than 210 days after discovery commences; all discovery is to be completed 270 days after discovery commences. Counsel does not consent to trial by a U.S. Magistrate Judge; Next case management conference set for 07/19/01 at 4:30 p.m. ( signed by Judge Richard C. Casey ); Copies mailed. (djc) (Entered: 07/02/2001)
7 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by Tonja McGhee against City of New York, N.Y.C. Housing Authority. Summons issued. (sac) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
7 DEMAND for jury trial by Tonja McGhee. (sac) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
Pretrial Conference held before Judge Richard C. Casey. (tp) (Entered: 07/25/2001)
8 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by Maria E. Gonzalez. Summons issued. (djc) (Entered: 07/24/2001)
20 NOTICE OF MOTION (filed on service date) by City of New York for an order pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over subject matter of the complaint, and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which releif may be granted . Return date not indicated. (moc) (Entered: 11/02/2001)

07/23/2001
08/03/2001 08/06/2001 08/06/2001 08/08/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/30/2001 08/31/2001
09/05/2001 09/07/2001 10/30/2001
10/30/2001

19 NOTICE OF MOTION (filed on service date) by N.Y.C. Housing Auth. for an order pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint filed in this action on the grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction . Return date not indicated. (moc) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
9 AFFIRMATION of Marilyn Richter by City of New York in opposition to [5-1] motion for an order giving permission for Theresa to intervene . (cd) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
10 NOTICE OF MOTION for an order to intervene by Tammy Auer ; Return date: 6/20/01. (pl) (Entered: 08/08/2001)
12 REPLY by Tammy Auer Re: [11-1] opposition memorandum (pl) (Entered: 08/08/2001)
11 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by N.Y.C. Housing Auth. in opposition to [10-1] motion for an order to intervene by Tammy Auer . (pl) (Entered: 08/08/2001)
13 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Tammy Auer by Yolanda S. Wu. (kw) (Entered: 08/28/2001)
14 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Tammy Auer by Deborah M. Baumgarten. (kw) (Entered: 08/28/2001)
15 Transcript of record of proceedings before Judge Richard C. Casey for the date(s) of 7/19/01. (moc) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of notice of appearance for Timothy Case by mail on 8/30/01 to Marilyn RIchter, Asst. Corporation Counsel; Donna Murphy, Atty for NYC Housing Authority and Eric B. Fisher, Office of the United States Attorney. (djc) (Entered: 09/05/2001)
17 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Tammy Auer by Timothy Casey. (kkc) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
18 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Tammy Auer by Martha F. Davis (cd) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
21 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by City of New York in support of [20-1] motion for an order pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over subject matter of the complaint, and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which releif may be granted . (moc) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
22 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Tammy Auer in opposition to [20-1] motion for an order pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)(6) of the FRCP,

10/30/2001 10/30/2001
11/16/2001 01/03/2002 03/11/2002
03/13/2002
03/13/2002

dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over subject matter of the complaint, and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which releif may be granted . (moc) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
23 REPLY MEMORANDUM by City of New York re: [20-1] motion for an order pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over subject matter of the complaint, and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which releif may be granted (moc) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
24 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by U.S.A. in opposition to [19-1] motion for an order pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint filed in this action on the grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, [20-1] motion for an order pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over subject matter of the complaint, and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which releif may be granted . (moc) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
Pretrial Conference held on 11/6/01 before Judge Richard C. Casey. (jco) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
25 Transcript of record of proceedings before Judge Richard C. Casey for the date(s) of 11/6/01 at 2:15 p.m. (jco) (Entered: 01/03/2002)
26 ORDER; granting [19-1] motion for an order pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint filed in this action on the grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, granting [20-1] motion for an order pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over subject matter of the complaint, and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, mooting [10-1] motion for an order to intervene by Tammy Auth. ( signed by Judge Richard C. Casey ); Copies mailed; ( Forwarded orig. document to the Judgment Clerk) (pl) Modified on 03/13/2002 (Entered: 03/12/2002)
27 JUDGMENT; That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated 3/8/02, defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints are granted; the Court finds it unnecessary to review Ms. Tammy Auth's motion to intervene as it is moot and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff Colon's state law claims; accordingly the case is closed. ( signed by James M. Parkison, Clerk of Court ); Mailed copies and notice of right to appeal. Entered On Docket: 3/15/02. (tp) (Entered: 03/15/2002)
Case closed. (tp) (Entered: 03/15/2002)

03/13/2002
04/10/2002 04/29/2002 05/03/2002 05/07/2002 05/09/2002
05/09/2002 05/10/2002 05/13/2002 05/14/2002

28 JUDGMENT; that for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated 3/8/02, defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint are granted; the Court finds it unnecessary to review Ms. Tammy Auth's motion to intervene as it is moot and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff Colon's state law claims; accordingly, the case is closed. (signed by James M. Parkison, Clerk of Court); Mailed copies and notice of right to appeal. Entered On Docket: 3/19/02. (pl) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
29 Memo-Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Casey from Martha F. Davis, dated 3/28/02, as explained in the court's 3/8/02 opinion, Ms. Auer's motion was dismissed as moot ( signed by Judge Richard C. Casey ); Copies mailed. (cd) (Entered: 04/11/2002)
30 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by Maria Gonzalez. (jco) (Entered: 05/01/2002)
31 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Maria E. Gonzalez from [26-1] order . Copies of notice of appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: Donna Murphy, Esq. and Marilyn Richter, Esq. $105.00 Appeal filing fee paid 5/3/02 on receipt # E 437922. (dt) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
Notice of appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: [31-1] appeal by Maria E. Gonzalez ; Copy of notice of appeal sent to District Judge. (dt) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
32 NOTICE OF APPEAL by U.S.A. from [28-1] judgment order . Copies of notice of appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: Marilyn Richter, Esq., Donna Murpahy, Esq., Yolanda Wu, Esq., Daniel D. Leddy, Jr., Esq., Philip E. Taubman, Esq., Jack Tuckner, Esq. and Kenneth W. Richardson, Esq. (Filed by U.S.A. No Fee). (dt) (Entered: 05/09/2002)
Notice of appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: [32-1] appeal by U.S.A. ; Copy of notice of appeal sent to District Judge. (dt) (Entered: 05/09/2002)
33 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Tammy Auer from [28-1] judgment order . Copies of notice of appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: Marilyn Richter and Donna Murphy. $105.00 Appeal filing fee paid 5/10/02 on receipt # E 0439240. (dt) (Entered: 05/13/2002)
Notice of appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: [33-1] appeal by Tammy Auer ; Copy of notice of appeal sent to District Judge. (dt) (Entered: 05/13/2002)
34 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Plaintintiff intervenor Theresa CaldwellBenjamin ; from ; [28-1] judgment order . Copies of notice of appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: James B. Comey, Donna Murphy, Esq., Marilyn Richter, Esq., Yolanda Wu, Esq., Daniel D. Leddy, Jr.,

05/14/2002
05/17/2002 05/17/2002 07/25/2002 09/12/2002 06/21/2004
06/21/2004 07/07/2004 07/07/2004

Esq. and Jack Tuckner, Esq. $105.00 Appeal filing fee paid 5/14/02 on receipt # E 0439376. (dt) (Entered: 05/17/2002)
35 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Tonja McGhee from [28-1] judgment order . Copies of notice of appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: Eric B. Fisher, Esq., Marilyn Richter, Esq., Donna Murphy, Esq., Yolanda Wu, Esq., Daniel D. Leddy, Jr., Esq., Jack Tuckner, Esq. and Kenneth W. Richardson, Esq. $105.00 Appeal filing fee paid 5/14/02 on receipt # E 0439351. (dt) (Entered: 05/17/2002)
Notice of appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: [34-1] appeal ; Copy of notice of appeal sent to District Judge. (dt) (Entered: 05/17/2002)
Notice of appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: [35-1] appeal by Tonja McGhee ; Copy of notice of appeal sent to District Judge. (dt) (Entered: 05/17/2002)
USCA Case Number Re: [35-1] appeal by Tonja McGhee, [34-1] appeal, [33-1] appeal by Tammy Auer, [32-1] appeal by U.S.A., [31-1] appeal by Maria E. Gonzalez USCA NUMBER: 02-6102(L) 026112(CON) 02-6122 (CON) 02-6124(CON) 02-6126(CON). (pr) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
36 Notice that the record on appeal has been certified and transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals: [35-1] appeal by Tonja McGhee, [33-1] appeal by Tammy Auer. (pr) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
37 MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to [33] Notice of Appeal filed by Tammy Auer, [35] Notice of Appeal, filed by Tonja McGhee, [31] Notice of Appeal filed by Maria E. Gonzalez, [32] Notice of Appeal, filed by United States of America, [34] Notice of Appeal, USCA Case Number 02-6102(L), 02-6112, 02-6122, 02-6124, 02-6126, 02-7405. Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the judgment of the District Court is VACATED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT. MACKECHNIE, Clerk USCA. Issued As Mandate: 6/18/04. (pr, ) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
Transmission of USCA Mandate/Order to the District Judge re: [37] USCA Mandate,,. (pr, ) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
38 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard C. Casey from Neil M. Corwin dated 6/23/04. The parties shall appear for a status conf. on 7/23/04 at 9:30 a.m. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 7/6/04) (kw, ) (Entered: 07/11/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 7/23/2004 09:30 AM before Judge Richard C. Casey. (kw, ) (Entered: 07/11/2004)

07/23/2004 07/23/2004 09/21/2004 09/21/2004 10/15/2004 10/20/2004
02/15/2005

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard C. Casey : Status Conference held on 7/23/2004. Defendant City of New York plans to appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court. If the appeal is not granted, the City of New Yorkwill try to settle the case. The Court stays all discovery until 10/15/04. Next Status conference set for 10/15/04 at 9:30 a.m. (db, ) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 10/15/2004. Status Conference set for 10/15/2004 09:30 AM before Judge Richard C. Casey. (db, ) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
39 PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR TAMMY AUER'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support of re: [10] Motion to Intervene. Document filed by Tammy Auer. (jmi, ) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
40 LETTER addressed to Judge Richard C. Casey from Marilyn Richter dated 9/21/04 re: Defendants hereby submit their opposition to the attempted assertion in this case of employment discrimination claims under state law, and local law by plaintiffs Colon and Auer. Document filed by City of New York, New York City Housing Authority... Received in the night deposit box on 9/21/04 at 7:54 P.M. (sac, ) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard C. Casey : Status Conference held on 10/15/2004. City has filed petition for Layer for Caldell Benjamin not present. Court instructs plaintiff's to send certified letter to be sure he agrees with schedule. City wants to make summary motion judgment against Caldwell Benjamin, will discuss at 2/18/05 status conference after the appeal with Supreme Court. (jco, ) (Entered: 10/22/2004)
41 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Joinder of Parties due by 1/23/2004. The case is to be tried by a jury; Counsel for parties have dicussed the merits of settlement in regard to this action and do not wish to request a settlement conf. before a US Magistrate; Counsel for parties have discussed the merits of mediation in regard to this action and do not wish to employ the mediation services provided by this court; Answer filed by 11/15/04; see document for further discovery deadlines; Case Management Conference set for 2/18/2005 09:30 AM before Judge Richard C. Casey. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 10/15/04) (djc, ) (Entered: 10/22/2004)
42 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Casey from Melanie Hallums dated 2/11/05: the 2/18 conference is adjourned to 3/18/05 at 9:30 am. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 2/19/05) copies sent by chambers.(cd, ) (Entered: 02/18/2005)

02/15/2005 03/17/2005 03/17/2005 04/22/2005 05/05/2005
05/20/2005 05/20/2005 06/24/2005 06/24/2005 07/12/2005 08/05/2005

Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Status Conference set for 3/18/2005 09:30 AM before Judge Richard C. Casey. (cd, ) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
43 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Richard Conway Casey from Melanie R. Hallums dated 3/15/05 re: applicaiton granted; status conference moved from 3/18/05 to 4/22/05. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 3/16/05) (pl, ) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Status Conference set for 4/22/2005 09:30 AM before Judge Richard C. Casey. (pl, ) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
44 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Jduge Richard Conway Casey from Malanie R. Hallums dated 4/20/05 re: status conference adjourned to 5/6/05. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 4/21/05) (pl, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
45 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard C. Casey from Melanie Hallums dated 5/5/05 re: counsel for parties request an adjournment of the status conference. Application granted. Conference adjourned to 5/20/05. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 5/5/05) (dle, ) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
46 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard Conway Casey from Melanie R. Hallums dated 5/18/05 re: Application granted conference adjourned June 24. Please notify other parties. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 5/20/05) (pl, ) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/24/2005 09:30 AM before Judge Richard C. Casey. (pl, ) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
47 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Casey from Melanie R. Hallums dated 6/22/2005 re: request status conference with the Court be rescheduled to 7/8/2005 at 9:30am. Application granted. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 6/23/2005) (jsa, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 7/8/2005 09:30 AM before Judge Richard C. Casey. (jsa, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
48 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Casey from Melanie Hallums dated 7/6/05: the 7/8 status conf is adjourned to 8/5/05. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 7/12/05) (cd, ) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
49 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard C. Casey from Melanie R. Hallums dated 8/3/05 re: Application GRANTED. Status conference adjourned to 9/30/05 at 9:30 a.m. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 8/4/05) (db, ) (Entered: 08/08/2005)

08/05/2005 09/30/2005 09/30/2005 11/17/2005
01/13/2006 02/22/2006 03/20/2006
04/21/2006 05/15/2006

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 9/30/2005 09:30 AM before Judge Richard C. Casey. (db, ) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
50 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard Conway Casey from Melanie R. Hallums dated 9/28/05 re: a request for an adjournment of the status conference.ENDORSEMENT: Application granted, conference adjourned to 11/4/05 at 9:30 AM. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 9/30/05) (kco, ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: A Status Conference is set for 11/4/2005 at 9:30 AM before Judge Richard C. Casey. (kco, ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
51 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Richard C. Casey from Melanie R. Hallums dated 11/16/2005 re: the parties respectfully request that the status conference be adjourned to a date that is convenient for the Court after 12/18/2005. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. Conference adjourned to 1/16/2006 at 9:30 a.m. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 11/17/2005) (lb, ) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
52 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard Conway Casey from Melanie R. Hallums dated 1/11/06 re: all parties request an adjournment of the status conference. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted, conference adjourned to 2/17/2006 at 9:30 AM. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 1/12/06) (kco, ) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
53 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard Conway Casey from Melanie R. Hallums dated 2/15/06. ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED conference adjourned to March 17, 2006. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 2/16/06) (js, ) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
54 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard Conway Casey from Melanie R. Hallums dated 3/16/06 re: Request that the Status conference be adjourned to a date that is convenient for the Court on or after March 31, 2006. ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. Conference adjourned to April 21, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 3/16/06) (js, ) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
55 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard Conway Casey from Melanie R. Hallums dated 4/20/06 re: a request for an adjournment of the status conference.ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. Conference adjourned to 5/12/2006 at 9:30 a.m. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 4/20/06) (kco, ) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
56 CONSENT DECREE # 06,1088 in favor of Tammy Auer as against City of NY in the amount of $ 110,000. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 5/12/06) (jf, ) (Entered: 05/17/2006)

08/16/2006 04/18/2007 05/10/2007

57 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard C. Casey from Marilyn Richter dated 8/11/06 re: Counsel for defendant writes to request additional time to complete the distribution of the notice. Application granted. The defendant must complete distribution of the notice by 9/9/06. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Richard C. Casey on 8/15/06) (jco, ) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
58 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Duplicate Original) Show Cause Hearing set for 5/8/2007 11:30 AM before Judge John F. Keenan.,Show Cause Response due by 4/27/2007. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 4/18/2007 part I) (jmi) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
59 ORDER: The motion to compel the City of New York to pay the $18,000.00 is GRANTED. The City of New York is directed to pay Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin within 10 days of the issuance of this order. The Court denies the portion of Ms. Richter's declaration filed in response to the order to show cause makes clear that she was not acting with malice or in bad faith in failing to pay Ms. Caldwell-Benjamin. Therefore, sanctions attorneys' fees and costs are not appropriate. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 5/9/07) (js) (Entered: 05/10/2007)