Case 9:06-cv-00226-TH Document 1 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 1 of 6

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

v.

§

§

NATIONAL VISION, INC.

§

d/b/a THE VISION CENTER

§

§

Defendant.

§

BY_._
q: ;Q.b CIVIL ACTION NO. Cbc. V
JUDGE HEARTFIELO
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 1. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to a class of female employees who were adversely affected by Defendant National Vision, Inc. d/b/a The Vision Center's unlawful practices. While employed by Defendant, Lisa Arriola, Charlinda Wells, Martha Padilla and Tiffany Mcintee were subjected to unwelcome comments and touching of a sexual nature by Defendant's optometrist.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331,1337,1343 and 1345, the United States District Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this civil action. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

Case 9:06-cv-00226-TH Document 1 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 2 of 6
3. The unlawful employment practices alleged in this complaint were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division. Venue is appropriate in this court.
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission"), is the 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) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(f)(1) and (3). 5. Defendant, National Vision, Inc. d/b/a The Vision Center ("Defendant") is a
corporation doing business in the Wal-Mart at 2500 Daniel McCall Drive, Lufkin, Texas, 75904, and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. Defendant may be served by serving its registered agent for service of process, The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, 701 Brazos Street, Suite 1050, Austin, Texas 78701.
6. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Arriola, Wells, Padilla and Mcintee filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled, including the filing of timely charges of employment discrimination, and an attempt to conciliate each matter.
-2-

Case 9:06-cv-00226-TH Document 1 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 3 of 6
8. Since at least 2003, Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), at its Lufkin location.
9. Since at least November 2003, Defendant's contract optometrist Dr. S. J. Charendoff ("Charendoff') subjected Arriola, Wells, Padilla and Mcintee to unwelcome comments and touching of a sexual nature.
10. The conduct included, inter alia, Charendoff making sexually-charged comments to the women, inviting Arriola and Wells to sit on his lap, commenting on Wells' breasts, pressing his groin against Wells and Padilla's backsides and hips, and running his fingers through Mcintee's hair.
11. The female employees resisted Charendoffs sexual comments and advances and complained about him to members of management to no avail.
12. The females were subjected to a series of separate, harassing acts that collectively constituted an unlawful employment practice.
13. The effect of the practices complained of in the preceding paragraphs has been to deprive Arriola, Wells, Padilla and Mcintee of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex, female.
14. The unlawful employment practices of which the Commission complains in the preceding paragraphs were intentional.
15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the preceding paragraphs were and are done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Arriola, Wells, Padilla and Mcintee.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 16. Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
-3-

Case 9:06-cv-00226-TH

Document 1

-----------------------
Filed 09/25/2006 Page 4 of 6

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex;
B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for applicants and employees regardless of their sex, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
C. Order Defendant to make whole Lisa Arriola, Charlinda Wells, Martha Padilla and Tiffany Mcintee by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in the preceding paragraphs.
D. Order Defendantto make whole Lisa Arriola, Charlinda Wells, Martha Padilla and Tiffany Mcintee by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting form the unlawful employment practices described in the preceding paragraphs, including emotional pain, inconvenience, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to pay Lisa Arriola, Charlinda Wells, Martha Padilla and Tiffany Mcintee punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct, as described above, in an amount to be determined at trial.
F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
G. Award the Commission its costs in this action. -4-

- - - - - - - - - - ~--~--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case 9:06-cv-00226-TH Document 1 Filed 09/25/2006

Page 5 of 6

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel 1801 L. Street, NW. Wa ing on, D.C. 20507

Senior ial ~ttorney AttorneY-in-Charge Texas Bar No.: 02717500 Southern District No.: 10145 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1919 Smith Street, 7th Floor Houston, Texas 77002-8049 (713) 209-3399 Fax: (713) 209-3402 Email: kathy.boutchee@eeoc.gov
OF COUNSEL:
Jim Sacher Regional Attorney
Rose Adewale-Mendes Supervisory Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1919 Smith Street, 7th Floor
-5-

Case 9:06-cv-00226-TH Document 1 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 6 of 6 Houston, Texas 77002
-6-

 
 CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFileiledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee11oof f2200

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff
v.
NATIONAL VISION, INC. d/b/a THE VISION CENTER,
Defendant

§ § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:06cv226 § § JUDGE HEARTFIELD § § §

PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

NOW COME Plaintiffs-Intervenors Lisa Arriola, Charlinda Wells,

Martha Padilla and Tiffany McIntee, complaining of Defendant

National Vision, Inc. d/b/a The Vision Center and Defendant Dr. S.

J. Charendoff. In support of this claim, Plaintiffs-Intervenors

submit the following:

I

Introduction

1. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Lisa Arriola (“Arriola”), Charlinda

Wells (“Wells”), Martha Padilla (“Padilla”), and Tiffany McIntee

(“McIntee”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs-Intervenors”) complain

of Defendant National Vision, Inc. d/b/a The Vision Center

(“Vision Center”) and Defendant Dr. S. J. Charendoff (“Charendoff”)

in this employment discrimination case originally brought by the

EEOC. The Plaintiffs-Intervenors are all women and former

employees of Vision Center who pursue claims for sex discrimination

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 1

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFileiledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee22oof f2200
(sexual harassment) in employment and retaliation pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) against Defendant Vision Center only and common law claims of assault arising out of the same operative facts against Defendant Charendoff only.
2. Plaintiffs-Intervenors were sexually harassed, including common law assaults, by Defendant Charendoff, an optometrist under contract to Vision Center, while they worked at Defendant Vision Center’s store known as the WalMart Vision Center located in the WalMart in Lufkin, Texas. Plaintiffs-Intervenors opposed the harassment by seeking protection from their employer, Vision Center, which ignored the reports of harassment for many months and began to retaliate against Plaintiffs-Intervenors by treating them with hostility. When Vision Center received notice that Plaintiffs-Intervenors had reported the sexual harassment to the EEOC, Vision Center increased its campaign of retaliation against the Plaintiffs-Intervenors to punish the Plaintiffs-Intervenors for having opposed the sexual harassment. As a result of these actions, the Plaintiffs were compelled to resign their employment.
3. Plaintiffs-Intervenors seek vindication of their rights guaranteed by Title VII and by the common law of the State of Texas. These Plaintiffs seek the full measure of available relief, including declaratory, equitable, compensatory and punitive remedies, as well as costs, including attorney’s fees.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 2

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFileiledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee33oof f2200
II Jurisdiction and Venue 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ Title VII claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4), 28 U.S.C. § 1337, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f). This court also has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ claims pursuant to the common law of the State of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 5. The sexual harassment alleged in this Complaint, including assaults and batteries in violation of Texas common law, occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division. Venue is therefore appropriate in this Court.
III Parties Plaintiffs 6. Plaintiff-Intervenor Arriola is a female citizen of the United States and resident of Angelina County. Arriola is, or was at all relevant times, an employee entitled to the protections of Title VII, including the prohibitions against sexual harassment and retaliation, and to the benefit of the common law of the State of Texas. 7. Plaintiff-Intervenor Wells is a female citizen of the United States and resident of Angelina County. Wells is, or was at all relevant times, an employee entitled to the protections of Title
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 3

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFileiledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee44oof f2200
VII, including the prohibitions against sexual harassment and retaliation, and to the benefit of the common law of the State of Texas. 8. Plaintiff-Intervenor Padilla is a female citizen of the United States and resident of Angelina County. Padilla is, or was at all relevant times, an employee entitled to the protections of Title VII, including the prohibitions against sexual harassment and retaliation, and to the benefit of the common law of the State of Texas. 9. Plaintiff-Intervenor McIntee is a female citizen of the United States and was a resident of Angelina County, and is now a resident of LaCrosse County, Wisconsin. McIntee is, or was at all relevant times, an employee entitled to the protections of Title VII, including the prohibitions against sexual harassment and retaliation, and to the benefit of the common law of the State of Texas. 10. Plaintiff the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”), is the 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. § 2000(e)-5(f)(1) and (3).
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 4

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFileiledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee55oof f2200
Defendants 11. Defendant, National Vision, Inc. d/b/a The Vision Center (“Vision Center”) is a corporation doing business as the WalMart Vision Center in the WalMart store at 2500 Daniel McCall Drive, Lufkin Texas 75904, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. Vision Center, acts by and through its managers, agents, officials and employees, may be served by serving its registered agent for service of process, The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, 701 Brazos Street, Suite 1050, Austin TX 78701. 12. Defendant Charendoff, apparently an optometrist, is an individual subject to the common law of Texas who still works at Vision Center’s Lufkin WalMart location, 2500 McCall Drive, Lufkin Texas 75904, where he can be served.
IV Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 13. Plaintiffs-Intervenors have filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC and satisfied all administrative prerequisites to filing their Title VII claims. The EEOC determined that Vision Center’s failure to take prompt corrective action constitutes a violation of Title VII.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 5

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFileiledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee66oof f2200
V Federal Causes of Action For All Plaintiffs-Intervenors: 14. The Plaintiffs-Intervenors were all employees of Defendant Vision Center at its location in the Lufkin, Texas WalMart. While the Plaintiffs-Intervenors were employed, Defendant Vision Center also contracted with Defendant Charendoff to work as an optometrist at the same location. 15. Defendant Charendoff had previously contracted to work at at least one other Vision Center locations, and Vision Center employees had previously complained of his sexual harassment. Despite this history, Vision Center contracted with Charendoff to work with its employees, the Plaintiffs-Intervenors, at the Lufkin, Texas WalMart. 16. Defendant Charendoff sexually harassed the PlaintiffsIntervenors by making unwelcome sexual comments and suggestions, and/or offensively touching the Plaintiffs-Intervenors. 17. The Plaintiffs-Intervenors reported the sexual harassment, including the offensive touching, to Defendant Vision Center according to its published policy. Defendant Vision Center acknowledged some of the reports and even admitted knowing that Charendoff was a “pervert,” but for many months took no significant or meaningful action to end the harassment, protect the PlaintiffsIntervenors, or even to investigate the harassment. Vision Center
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 6

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFileiledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee77oof f2200
did begin a campaign of retaliatory harassment against the Plaintiffs-Intervenors in response to their persistent opposition to the sexual harassment. 18. The Plaintiffs-Intervenors reported the sexual harassment to the EEOC after Vision Center had ignored their reports. When Vision Center learned of the proceedings before the EEOC, it ratcheted up its campaign of retaliation against the PlaintiffsIntervenors, including conducting an unethical and intimidating socalled “investigation,” threatening their job security, facilitating hostility toward the Plaintiffs-Intervenors by Defendant Charendoff and others, falsely criticizing their work performance, subjecting Plaintiffs-Intervenors to heightened scrutiny, and/or other retaliatory acts. 19. As a result of Defendants’ actions complained of above, Plaintiffs-Intervenors were reasonably compelled to quit to protect their own safety and well-being, constituting constructive discharge. 20. Defendant Vision Center’s actions and omissions described herein caused each Plaintiff-Intervenor to suffer lost pay and compensation as well as emotional distress, for which Vision Center is liable to each Plaintiff-Intervenor. 21. Defendant Vision Center’s actions and omissions described herein were willful, malicious and in reckless disregard of each Plaintiff-Intervenor’s rights, making appropriate awards of
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 7

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFileiledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee88oof f2200
punitive damages. 22. Defendant Vision Center’s actions and omissions described herein constitute violations of Title VII, which creates a cause of action for redress. For Plaintiff-Intervenor Arriola: 23. Arriola was employed as the Store Manager of Defendant’s WalMart Vision Center in the Lufkin, Texas store when, since about November 2003, the Vision Center contracted with Defendant Charendoff to also work at that store. 24. Since on or about December 2003, Defendant Charendoff began to sexually harass Arriola and the other women employees at the store. 25. Specifically, Defendant Charendoff made unwelcome sexual comments to Arriola, including, describing movie sex scenes, offering to “take care” of her when her husband traveled, and inviting her to sit on his lap, among other things. On each occasion Arriola made it obvious that the sexual remarks were unwelcome. 26. Defendant Charendoff also offensively and sexually touched Arriola. On several occasions he would rub on her arms, back and shoulders to which she would respond by interrupting her work and moving away, and telling him to stop. On some of those, and other, occasions he would rub his crotch against her, with similar response. 27. Arriola saw and heard reports from the other women employees
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 8

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFileiledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee99oof f2200
that Defendant Charendoff was treating the other women similarly. 28. Consistent with Vision Center policy, Arriola began reporting the sexual harassment to her supervisor, Vision Center’s District Manager, in December, 2003. Although Vision Center’s District Manager agreed that Charendoff was some kind of a pervert, the District Manager ignored Arriola’s many reports, or inconsistently told her he didn’t believe it, it was the women’s fault, to “handle it” herself, to “be nice” to Charendoff, to leave Charendoff alone, or (sarcastically) to call the police “if it’s so bad,” among other less-than-helpful responses. He also told her to go get a lawyer because Vision Center would not do anything and that it would do her no good to go over his head. On many occasions he shouted at her. Eventually, the District Manager began failing to even return Arriola’s phone calls. 29. When, and because, Arriola persisted in reporting the harassment, Vision Center’s District Manager began making false negative comments about her job performance (which was, in fact, very good), threatening her job security, as well as shouting at her and treating her in a hostile manner. As retaliation he also resisted her claims regarding an on-the-job knee injury. 30. Vision Center’s actions and omissions, including its tolerating the harassment by Defendant Charendoff, interfered with Arriola’s job duties.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 9

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFilieledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee1100oof f2200
31. By mid-September 2004, Vision Center learned that Arriola had filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and had retained counsel. Although Arriola’s counsel offered to cooperate with any good faith investigation by Vision Center, Vision Center rejected the offer of cooperation and to further retaliate against Arriola insisted that Arriola be subject to questioning, in violation of legal ethics rules. 32. After Arriola asked that Vision Center’s questions be put in writing, the District Manager said he could foresee Vision Center firing Arriola down the road. To protect her employment record and because of the stress related to Vision Center’s actions, Arriola reasonably felt compelled to resign. 33. The actions and omissions described herein constitute violations of Title VII, which provides Plaintiff-Intervenor Arriola a cause of action. 34. Vision Center’s actions and omissions described above caused Arriola to lose valuable compensation and fringe benefits, incur incidental expenses in finding alternative employment, and to suffer mental damages. For Plaintiff-Intervenor Wells: 35. Plaintiff-Intervenor Wells worked for Defendant National Vision as the Assistant Manager of its store located in the Lufkin, Texas WalMart beginning in about March, 2002. She was working in this capacity in November 2003 when Vision Center contracted with
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 10

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFilieledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee1111oof f2200
Defendant Charendoff to work at the same location. 36. By December 2003 Defendant Charendoff began to sexually harass Wells and the other women working for Vision Center at that location. The harassment included unwelcome offensive verbal remarks and inappropriate touching of a sexual nature. 37. Specifically, Defendant Charendoff made unwelcome sexual remarks to Wells, including, describing movie sex scenes, asking Wells to sit on his lap, telling Wells she had nice breasts, offering to “comfort” Wells, recommending that she wear lower-cut shirts and shorter-length skirts to improve store business, and making sexual references to her jewelry, among other things. On each occasion, Wells made it clear that his comments were unwelcome and inappropriate. 38. Defendant Charendoff also offensively and sexually touched Wells, including pressing his crotch against her and rubbing her arms and back when she was trying to work. On each occasion, Wells made it clear that Charendoff’s conduct was inappropriate and unwelcome. 39. Plaintiff-Intervenor Wells also saw, and heard reports from other Vision Center women employees, that Charendoff similarly harassed the other women employees. 40. Consistent with Vision Center policy, Wells reported the sexual harassment to her immediate supervisor, Store Manager Arriola, and to the next level supervisor, Vision Center’s District
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 11

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFilieledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee1122oof f2200
Manager, beginning by December of 2003. Arriola reported the matters to the District Manager as well. The District Manager would take no meaningful corrective action. Instead he said Wells and the other women employees should be nice to Charendoff, while also acknowledging that Charendoff was a pervert, and suggesting that Wells get a lawyer. 41. When Vision Center officials would take no corrective action for months, in September 2004, Wells filed an initial charge of discrimination with the EEOC. 42. Vision Center did take retaliatory action against Wells for persisting in her opposition to the sexual harassment, and the retaliatory action escalated after Vision Center learned of her EEOC charge. The District Manager and Vision Center became openly hostile to Wells, questioning her work performance (which was, in fact, quite good), subjecting her to an intimidating unethical custodial investigation, threatening to fire her, calling her a thief, threatening her with insubordination, and withholding a bonus, among other things. 43. Among other retaliatory acts, Vision Center assigned Wells a new Store Manager and supervisor who was incompetent, crude and hostile to Wells, as part of the effort to drive Wells out of her job. 44. Vision Center’s actions and omissions complained of herein, including Defendant Charendoff’s conduct in harassing Plaintiff-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 12

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFilieledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee1133oof f2200
Intervenor Wells, interfered with Wells’ work and caused her considerable anxiety. 45. Because of the actions and inactions complained of above, Plaintiff-Intervenor Wells reasonably felt compelled to resign from WalMart Vision Center in March of 2005. 46. The actions and omissions described herein constitute violations of Title VII, which provides Plaintiff-Intervenor Wells a cause of action. 47. Vision Center’s actions and omissions described above caused Wells to lose valuable compensation and fringe benefits, incur incidental expenses in finding alternative employment, and to suffer mental damages. For Plaintiff-Intervenor Martha Padilla: 48. Plaintiff-Intervenor Padilla worked for Defendant Vision Center as a Sales Associate at the Lufkin, Texas WalMart store from approximately May, 2003. She was working in this capacity in November 2003 when Vision Center contracted with Defendant Charendoff to work at the same location. 49. By December 2003 Defendant Charendoff began to sexually harass Padilla and the other women working for Vision Center at that location. The harassment included unwelcome offensive verbal remarks and inappropriate touching. 50. Specifically, Charendoff made unwelcome sexual remarks to Padilla, including asking her if she had sex with older men,
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 13

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFilieledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee1144oof f2200
offering to comfort her, and commenting on Plaintiff-Intervenor Wells’ breasts, among other things. On each occasion Padilla made it clear that the comments were unwelcome and inappropriate. This conduct made it more difficult for Padilla to work. 51. Charendoff also inappropriately and offensively touched Padilla. Specifically, Charendoff would press and rub his crotch against Padilla. On each such occasion, Padilla would indicate that the conduct was offensive and unwelcome. 52. Plaintiff-Intervenor Padilla also saw, and heard reports, that Charendoff similarly sexually harassed, including touching, other women Vision Center employees and that Vision Center would not take corrective action or otherwise protect the women. 53. Beginning in or about December 2003 Padilla reported Charendoff’s sexual harassment to her supervisors, PlaintiffsIntervenors Arriola and Wells, who in turn reported the sexual harassment up the chain of command to their supervisor, Vision Center’s District Manager, who would take no corrective action. 54. Vision Center retaliated against Padilla for her opposition to the sexual harassment described above by permitting the same harassment to continue and by making Padilla’s working conditions unbearable. 55. After Vision Center learned that Padilla filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, it ratcheted up the hostility of Padilla’s working environment by, among other things, assigning
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 14

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFilieledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee1155oof f2200
Padilla a new Store Manager and supervisor who had a history of tolerating (if not being friends with) Defendant Charendoff at another store and who was openly hostile to Padilla. Specifically, the new Store Manager was incompetent, crude and would do things too offensive to describe here, encouraged customers to lodge unfounded complaints against Padilla, and stole from Vision Center in a manner to frame Padilla. 56. As a result of the resulting unbearable working environment, Vision Center essentially forced Padilla to resign in March of 2005. 57. The actions and omissions described herein constitute violations of Title VII, which provides Plaintiff-Intervenor Padilla a cause of action. 58. Vision Center’s actions and omissions described above caused Padilla to lose valuable compensation and fringe benefits, incur incidental expenses in finding alternative employment, and to suffer mental damages. For Plaintiff-Intervenor McIntee: 59. Plaintiff-Intervenor McIntee worked for Defendant National Vision as a Sales Associate at its Lufkin, Texas location from approximately May, 2004, and was required to work with Defendant Charendoff. 60. Under the ruse of conducting an eye exam, Charendoff combed his hands through McIntee’s hair. McIntee made it clear the
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 15

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFilieledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee1166oof f2200
conduct was unwelcome and offensive. 61. Charendoff told McIntee he liked her bare neck. McIntee made it clear that his comments were also unwelcome. 62. Charendoff then became openly hostile to McIntee and humiliated and belittled her in front of others. 63. McIntee reported Charendoff’s conduct, described above, to her supervisors, but Vision Center took no corrective action. 64. When Vision Center learned that McIntee reported the harassment to the EEOC by filing a charge of discrimination it further retaliated against her by threatening to fire her, intimidating her, and by insisting on conducting an unethical custodial interrogation of Plaintiff-Intervenor McIntee. 65. As part of its retaliatory efforts, Vision Center assigned a particularly incompetent and crude manager to supervise McIntee. This Manager appeared to be a friend of Charendoff’s and hostile to McIntee, which she exhibited in particularly offensive and crude behavior. 66. As a result of the conduct described above, Vision Center made it very stressful and difficult for McIntee to continue working for Vision Center, causing her to resign in December, 2004. 67. The actions and omissions described herein constitute violations of Title VII, which provides Plaintiff-Intervenor McIntee a cause of action. 68. Vision Center’s actions and omissions described above caused
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 16

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFilieledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee1177oof f2200
McIntee to lose valuable compensation and fringe benefits, incur incidental expenses in finding alternative employment, and to suffer mental damages.
VI Common Law Causes of Action for Assault by Offensive Physical Contact1 69. Defendant Charendoff intentionally, knowingly, maliciously and recklessly physically touched and made contact with PlaintiffsIntervenors Arriola, Wells, Padilla and McIntee, as described above. 70. Defendant Charendoff knew, or should have known, that each of the Plaintiffs-Intervenors would regard the contact as offensive. 71. Defendant Charendoff’s offensive touching and physical contact with each of the Plaintiffs-Intervenors caused upset and personal indignity to each of the Plaintiffs-Intervenors. 72. Defendant Charendoff’s actions described above caused Plaintiffs-Intervenors to suffer mental damages and lost earning capacity and compensation, for which he is liable to each Plaintiff-Intervenor. 73. Defendant Charendoff’s actions described above were intentional, malicious and undertaken in reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ rights, making appropriate an award of punitive damages.
1 The State common law causes of action are against Defendant Charendoff only.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 17

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFilieledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee1188oof f2200
VII Request for Relief 74. Accordingly, Plaintiffs-Intervenors Arriola, Wells, Padilla and McIntee respectfully request that this Court advance this case on the docket and grant the following relief: 1. Grant Plaintiffs-Intervenors Arriola, Wells, Padilla and McIntee declaratory judgments, declaring Defendant Vision Center’s past practices herein complained of to have violated Plaintiff-Intervenor England’s rights in violation of Title VII; 2. Grant Plaintiffs-Intervenors Arriola, Wells, Padilla and McIntee declaratory judgments declaring that Defendant Charendoff has assaulted each of them by making offensive contact; 3. Enter judgments against Defendants Vision Center and Charendoff in favor of Plaintiffs-Intervenors Arriola, Wells, Padilla and McIntee for full compensatory damages; 4. Enter judgments against Defendant Vision Center and in favor of Plaintiffs-Intervenors Arriola, Wells, Padilla and McIntee for equitable relief, including back pay, reinstatement, and/or front pay, including fringe benefits; 5. Enter judgments against Defendant Vision Center and in favor of Plaintiffs-Intervenors Arriola, Wells, Padilla
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 18

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFilieledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee1199oof f2200
and McIntee for an amount of punitive damages sufficient to punish and deter Defendant Vision Center from discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation against Plaintiffs-Intervenors Arriola, Wells, Padilla and McIntee, and/or others; 6. Enter judgments against Defendant Charendoff and in favor of Plaintiffs-Intervenors Arriola, Wells, Padilla and McIntee for an amount of punitive damages sufficient to punish and deter Defendant Charendoff from violating the rights of Plaintiffs-Intervenors Arriola, Wells, Padilla and McIntee, and/or others; 7. Grant Plaintiffs-Intervenors Arriola, Wells, Padilla and McIntee a trial by jury; and 8. Grant Plaintiffs-Intervenors Arriola, Wells, Padilla and McIntee any and all additional relief to which they appears to be entitled, including a reasonable attorney fee, costs herein expended, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as provided by law.
Respectfully Submitted, /s/ TIMOTHY B. GARRIGAN Timothy B. Garrigan Attorney for Plaintiffs-Intervenors Bar Card No. 07703600 Stuckey, Garrigan & Castetter 2803 C North St., P.O. Box 631902 Nacogdoches, Texas 75963-1902 (936) 560-6020/FAX: 560-9578 tbgstugar@cox-internet.com
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 19

CCaassee99:0:066-c-cvv-0-000222266-T-THH DDooccuummeennt t37-3 FFilieledd1100/3/101/2/2000066 PPaaggee2200oof f2200
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served counsel in this case with a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs-Intervenors” Original Complaint by sending same via electronic filing/FAX/U. S. Postage Service prepaid to: Kathy D. Boutchee, Senior Trial Attorney Jim Sacher, Regional Attorney Rose Adewale-Mendes, Supervisory Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Houston District Office 1919 Smith Street, 7th Floor Houston TX 77002-8049 Curtis W. Fenley, III Fenley & Bate 224 E. Lufkin Ave. Lufkin TX 75902-0450 Dr. S. J. Charendoff WalMart Vision Center 2500 Daniel McCall Drive Lufkin TX 75901 on this the 11th day of October, 2006.
/s/ TIMOTHY B. GARRIGAN Timothy B. Garrigan
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 20

 
 Case 9:06-cv-00226-TH Document 22 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 1 of 2

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL VISON, INC. d/b/a THE VISION CENTER
Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:06CV226 (TH)

§

JURY

§

§

§

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendant Dr. S.J. Charendoff’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 19]. After reviewing the motion, the response, and the applicable law, this Court is of the opinion that the motion should be denied.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a complaint on September 25, 2006, seeking “to correct unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to a class of female employees who were adversely affected by Defendant National Vission, Inc. D/b/a The Vision Center’s unlawful practices.” EEOC’s Original Complaint [Doc. No. 1], paragraph 1. Members of the class of female employees who were allegedly harassed successfully intervened in the suit, joining in the Title VII claims against National Vision. The plaintiff intervenors also filed state law claims of assault by offensive physical contact, battery, and/or sexual harassment against intervenor defendant Dr. Charendoff. Dr. Charendoff now urges the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff-intervenors state claims. Primarily, Dr. Charendoff argues that because he was not an employer of the plaintiff-intervenors for Title VII purposes, the claims against him are sufficiently divorced from the underlying federal claim as to render this Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction undesirable.
II. ANALYSIS

Case 9:06-cv-00226-TH Document 22 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 2 of 2
Supplemental jurisdiction extends a district court’s jurisdiction over claims that are sufficiently related to the claim on which its original jurisdiction is based. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Furthermore, “[s]uch supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.” Id. See also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 557, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 2620, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005). The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when (1) the pendant claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law; (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction; (3) the Court has dismissed all claims for which it has original jurisdiction; or (4) in exceptional circumstances where there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Plaintiff-intervenors state claims against Dr. Charendoff arise from the same facts, conduct, and series of occurrences that gave rise to the EEOC’s suit. That Dr. Charendoff was not their employer is immaterial to this analysis. Furthermore, the Court finds none of the 1367(c) reasons to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction in this matter. Dr. Charendoff’s Motion to Dismiss will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Dr. S.J. Charendoff’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 19] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED. SIGNED this the 30 day of March, 2007.
____________________________ Thad Heartfield United States District Judge
2

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL.,

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

§

v.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:06-CV-226-TH

§

JURY

NATIONAL VISON, INC.

§

d/b/a THE VISION CENTER, and

§

DR. S. J. CHARENDOFF,

§

§

Defendants.

§

ORD ER GRAN TIN G D EFEN D AN T CH AREN D OFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD GMEN T
Before the Court is the Defendant Dr. S.J. Charendoff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Clerk’s Docket N o. 37] filed July 13, 2007. After considering the motion, this Court is of the opinion that the motion should be granted.
I. FAC T U AL AN D PRO CED U RAL BAC KG RO U N D
The Equal Employment O pportunity Commission (EEO C) filed a complaint on September 25, 2006, seeking “to correct unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to a class of female employees who were adversely affected by Defendant N ational Vission, Inc. D/ b/ a The Vision Center’s unlawful practices.” EEOC’s Original Complaint [Clerk’s Docket N o. 1], paragraph 1. Members of the class of female employees who were allegedly harassed successfully intervened in the suit, joining in the Title VII claims against N ational Vision, Inc. The Plaintiff-Intervenors also filed state law claims of assault by offensive physical contact, battery, and/ or sexual harassment against Intervenor Defendant Dr. Charendoff (referred to herein as “Charendoff”). In the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, which Plaintiff-Intervenors have not opposed, Charendoff seeks to show that Plaintiff-Intervenors state law claims of assault are barred by the applicable statue of limitations.

II. ST AN D ARD O F REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper when, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Amburgey v. Corhart Refractories Corp., 936 F.2d 805, 809 (5th Cir. 1991); FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). If the moving party establishes the absence of any genuine issue, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce evidence of the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986). Conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, and mere scintillas of evidence do not satisfy this burden. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). O nly a genuine dispute over a material fact (a fact which might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing substantive law) will preclude summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986). The dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the issue. Id.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) requires the court to look at the full record, including the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits. But the court is not going to “sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party’s opposition to summary judgment.” Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 463 (5th Cir. 1996). All reasonable inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and any doubt must be resolved in its favor. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1335, 1356 (1986). H owever, only reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party can be drawn from the evidence. Eastm an Kodak Co. v. Im age Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U .S. 451, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 2083 (1992).
III. AN ALYSIS
As stated above, Plaintiff-Intervenors have brought state common law assault claims against Charendoff. Under Texas law, the statute of limitations is two years for a claim of assualt. SeeTex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §16.003(a)(Vernon 2006); Polly v. Houston Lighting&Power Co., 803 F.Supp. 1, 7 (S.D. Tex. 1992). Further, under Texas case law, a cause of action for assault accrues at the time such assault occurs. Brothers v. Gilbert, 950 S.W .2d 213, 216 (Tex. App. Eastland, 1997, pet. denied). The record shows that Plaintiff-Intervenors filed their Motion to Intervene [Clerk’s Docket N o.3] on O ctober 11, 2006, and subsequently filed their Original Complaint [Clerk’s Docket N o. 7] on O ctober 30, 2006. Charendoff provides summary judgment evidence that, the alleged contact which forms the basis of each of the Plainiff-Intervenors state common law assault claims, occurred prior to O ctober 30, 2004. As such, Charendoff would show that Plaintiff-Intervenors’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations as a matter of law. Plaintiff-Intervenors offer no evidence in rebuttal, and admit in their Response to Charendoff’s
2

Motion for Summary Judgment, that Charendoff’s Motion presents a valid statute of limitations defense to the state common law assault claims.
Accordingly, no genuine issue of material fact exists to show that Plaintiff-Intervenors assault claims against Charendoff are not barred by the statute of limitations. Summary judgment is appropriate as to the Plaintiff-Intervenors’ assault claims against Charendoff.
IV. C O N C LU SIO N
H aving considered the motion, the summary judgment evidence, and the applicable law, this Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff-Intervenors fail to carry their summary judgment burden to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact showing that their state common law claims of civil assault against Charendoff are not barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the state law claims of civil assault made by the Plaintiff-Intervenors against Charendoff should be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS TH EREFORE ORD ERED that Defendant Dr. S.J. Charendoff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Clerk’s Docket N o. 37] is GRAN TED .
IT IS FURTH ER ORD ERED that the claims against Defendant-Intervenor Charendoff made by the Plaintiff-Intervenors are hereby D ISMISSED WITH PREJUD ICE, with all costs to be borne by those incurring same.
SO ORD ERED . SIGNED this the 12 day of September, 2007.
____________________________ Thad Heartfield United States District Judge
3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and
LISA ARRIOLA, CHARLINDA WELLS MARTHA PADILLA and TIFFANY MCINTEE
Plaintiff-Intervenors

OCT 242007
§

§

DAVID J

§

BY

. MALAND, CLER

§

DEPUTY_

§

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:06-cv-00226

-K

§

§

§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

§

v.

§

§

NATIONAL VISION, INC.

§

d/b/a THE VISION CENTER

§

CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("Commission") and Defendant, National Vision, Inc. d/b/a The Vision Center ("NVI" or

"Defendant") agree to entry of this Consent Decree.

I.

Background and History of Proceedings

A. Charging Parties Lisa Arriola, Charlinda Wells, Martha Padilla and Tiffany

Mcintee ("Charging Parties") filed charges of discrimination with the Commission (Charge

Nos. 330-2004-06547, 330-2004-06556, 330-2004-06559, 330-2004-06587) alleging

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

et seq. ("Title VII").

B. On September 25, 2006, after investigating the Charges and finding

discrimination, the Commission commenced this action alleging that Defendant's conduct

constituted sexual harassment in violation of Section 703 (a) of Title VII.

C. Defendant denied the allegations in the complaint.

D. The parties wish to avoid the risks, uncertainties and expenses of continued

litigation. Accordingly, the parties have agreed to settle this lawsuit. Neither Defendant's

consent to the entry of this Decree nor any of the terms set forth in it shall constitute or be

construed as an admission of any Title VII violation. Both parties agree that this Consent

Decree is being entered into for the sole purpose of compromising disputed claims without

the necessity for protracted litigation.

E. The Commission and Defendant stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Court and

the satisfaction of all administrative prerequisites. The parties further waive hearing and

entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1.

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

all claims brought by the EEOC arising out of or asserted in Civil Action No. 9:06-

cv-00226 and the above-referenced Charges on behalf of Charging Parties. This

Consent Decree remains in effect for three years from the date of entry. ("Consent

Period")

2.

During the Consent Period, Defendant is enjoined from sexually harassing

or otherwise discriminating against any employee because of such person's sex.

3.

During the Consent Period, Defendant is permanently enjoined from creating,

facilitating or permitting the existence of a work environment that is hostile to any

employee on the basis of sex, in violation of Title VII.

4.

During the Consent Period, Defendant is enjoined from discriminating or

retaliating in any manner against any individual because the person has made a

charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in the investigation,

-2-

proceeding or hearing by the Commission or the court proceeding in connection

with this case, in violation of Title VII.

5.

During the Consent Period, on an annual basis, Defendant will provide, using

either an attomey or an independent experienced training person or group, a live

and interactive program on employment discrimination, including the law prohibiting

sexual harassment, to all human resources employees responsible for receiving

and/or investigating complaints of sexual harassment and all district managers. The

first such training for the human resources employees shall be completed within

three (3) months from the date the Consent Decree is entered. The training shall

be presented by NVl's legal department and/or its designated representive.

Defendant shall submitto the EEOC, each year at least thirty days in advance of the

program, the name of the program provider and a curriculum outline indicating the

information to be addressed during the program and copies of all agendas and

materials to be distributed at the training seminar. The person who administers the

training shall have at least five years of experience in labor and employment law.

Written acknowledgment of receipt of the training shall be obtained by Defendant

from all individuals attending the training and retained among the employment

records of Defendant and also copies shall be forwarded to the EEOC within thirty

(30) days of the delivery of the training.

6.

Defendant will require Charendoff to re-sign NVI's Code of Conduct Policy,

containing provisions prohibiting sexual harassment, and he shall acknowledge

receipt of the policy and to abide by its terms.

-3-

7.

In addition to the training described in paragraph 5 above to be completed

by Charendoff, Defendant will require Charendoff, within ninety (90) days of entry

of the Decree, to complete the training mandated in its 11/9/04 letter to him

regarding workplace sexual harassment. Defendant will provide Charendoff with a

provider for this training within thirty (30) days of entry of the Decree.

8.

As NVI enters into new or renewed sub-occupancy agreements with

optometrists, such optometrists will be provided with copies of NVl's Code of

Conduct Policy, containing provisions prohibiting sexual harassment, and Defendant

shall require them to sign acknowledgement and receipt of the policy.

9.

During the Consent Period, Defendant will provide to the EEOC a quarterly

report for the States of Texas and Louisiana concerning complaints of sexual

harassment received by human resources and shall identify the type of complaint,

date the complaint was received by human resources, the date the complaint

resolved, the identity of the investigator and the resolution of the complaint.

10.

Defendant agrees that within ten (10) days after entry of this Decree, it will

remove from Charging Parties' personnel files any documents referencing their

charges of discrimination, the Commission's lawsuit or this Consent Decree entered

in resolution of the lawsuit. These documents shall not be part of their personnel

files but shall be kept segregated in separate, confidential folders. Further,

Defendant agrees not to reference any facts or information relating to the charges,

the lawsuit or the Consent Decree to any potential employer of Charging Parties.

It further agrees to provide in response to any written or verbal inquires from

potential employers a neutral job reference, stating their dates of employment,

-4-

position or title, ending salary and that they are eligible for rehire. Defendant shall

not reference the charges of discrimination, the Commission's lawsuit or this

Consent Decree.

11.

Defendant agree that within ten (10) days after entry of this Decree, it will

conspicuously post the attached notice (Exhibit "A") in an area accessible to all

employees at each of their Texas and Louisiana locations for the duration of the

Decree.

12.

Defendants agree to pay the total gross sum of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY

FIVE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($175,000.00), in full and final

settlement of the Commission's lawsuit to provide monetary relief to Lisa Arriola,

Charlinda Wells, Martha Padilla and Tiffany Mcintee. Defendant and Charging

Parties have agreed to other terms that are set out in a separate release

agreement. Said sum shall be paid within fifteen (15) days from the date of entry

of the Decree. Defendant shall mail or deliver the settlement check to Charging

Parties at the address provided by Charging Parties' counsel to Defendant. A copy

of the check disbursed to Charging Parties shall be mailed to the Commission's

undersigned counsel of record on the same day the check is mailed to Charging

Parties.

13.

Each party to this action shall bear their own costs and attorney's fees.

14.

This Consent Decree shall be binding on Defendant and all of Defendant's

successors-in-interest, and Defendant will notify all such successors-in-interest of

the existence and terms of this Consent Decree.

-5-

15.

During the Consent Period, the Court shall retain jurisdiction to assure

compliance with this Decree and to permit entry of such further orders or

modifications as may be appropriate. The Commission is specifically authorized to

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

the provisions herein.

16.

The Commission agrees that, in the event the Commission believes

Defendant is in violation of any provision of this Consent Decree, the Commission

shall notify Defendant, through their undersigned counsel, of such violation and

afford Defendant the opportunity to remedy as may be appropriate any such alleged

violation within 30 days of such notice, before instituting any legal action to enforce

such provision(s).

17.

Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to preclude the

Commission from filing a separate action under Title VII or any other statute which

the Commission enforces in the future for any alleged violations by Defendant not

resolved by this Decree.

18.

Each signatory certifies that he/she is authorized to execute this document

on behalf of the party whom he/she represents.

J 3 Signed this

dayOf---,r,-",),-,0~*,-".·- ,1rke'- "- '"_'/~t ___,2007at Lufkin, Texas.
-.. 5~ 7?J? , ~ ~ !~b
Thad. Heartfi~
United States District Judge

-6-

AGREED AND CONSENTED TO:
I Sy ~~CA:i4-+!JL:.::+,e..\:!U;&::::: hy . Sou chee is: . 17500 Equal Employment Opportunity ! Commission 1919 Smith Street, 7'" Floor Houston. Texas 77002 (713) 209-3399 Fax: (713) 209-3402 Email: kathy.boutchee@eeoc.qov

AHORNEY FOR DEFENDANT Nfl.TIONAl VISION. iNC.
d/b/a THE V1SJON CENTER
.. - - -

Curtis (Curt) \lV.

, III

TBN: 06902010

Fenley & Sate, LLP

224 E. Lufkin Avenue

Lufkin, Texas 75902-0450

(936) 634-3346

Fax: (936) 639-5874

Email: cfen!ey((i)fenie.y:..pate.com

-7-

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Houstou District Office

Mickey Leland Federal Building [919 Smith Street, 7'" Floor Houston. TX 77002-8049 (713) 209-3320 TTY (713) 209-3439 FAX (713) 209-3381

NOTICE TO THE TEXAS & LOUISIANA EMPLOYEES OF

NATIONAL VISION, INC.,d/b/a THE VISION CENTER

THIS NOTICE IS POSTED PURSUANT TO A CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE EEOC AND NATIONAL VISION, INC., D/B/A THE VISION CENTER REGARDING SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORK PLACE PURSUANT TO TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED.
1. Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because ofthe employee's sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age or disability with respect to compensation, hiring or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
2. NATIONAL VISION, INC. d/b/a THE VISION CENTER expressly prohibits sex discrimination and sexual harassment and will not engage in any employment practices that have the effect ofcreating or tolerating a hostile environment for employees because of their sex.
3. NATIONAL VISION, INC. d/b/a THE VISION CENTER support and will comply with such Federallaw in all respects and will not retaliate or take any action against current or former employees because they have exercised their rights under the law by filiog charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), providing information to the EEOC, and/or participatiog io any manner with an EEOC investigation or lawsuit or provided information during the company's investigation of any discrimination or harassment complaint..
4. At NATIONAL VISION, INC. d/b/a THE VISION CENTER., such discriminatory employment practices will not be tolerated. NATIONAL VISION, INC. d/b/a THE VISION CENTER will promptly investigate any claims of unlawful discrimination or harassment and will take appropriate action as indicated by the results of their investigation.
5. Any employee who feels he/she have been the target of such discrimination or harassment is advised to report this action promptly to Gwen Stipetich, NVI Director ofHuman Resources, 296 Grayson Hwy., Lawrenceville, GA, 30045, (770) 822-3600_
SIGNED this _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2007.

Jeff Busbee Vice-President of Human Resources NATIONAL VISION, INC. d/b/a THE VISION CENTER
This OFFICIAL NOTICE shall remain posted for three full years from date of signing. "EXHIBIT A"
-8-

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

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807802118421796-L_3...

U.S. District Court [LIVE] Eastern District of TEXAS (Lufkin) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:06-cv-00226-TH

CLOSED, JURY

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. National Vision, Inc Assigned to: Judge Thad Heartfield Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 09/25/2006 Date Terminated: 11/20/2007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Mediator Harold Kip Glasscock, Jr

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Kathy D Boutchee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Houston District Office 1919 Smith Street 7th Floor Houston, TX 77002 713/209-3399 Fax: 17132093402 Email: kathy.boutchee@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Lisa Arriola

represented by Timothy Borne Garrigan Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter 2803 North Street PO Box 631902 Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1902 936/560-6020 Fax: 19365609578 Email: tim@sgclaw.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Tiffany McIntee

represented by Timothy Borne Garrigan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff

1 of 9

3/6/2008 3:23 PM

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

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807802118421796-L_3...

Martha Padilla
Intervenor Plaintiff Charlinda Wells
V. Defendant National Vision, Inc doing business as Vision Center, The
Intervenor Defendant S J Charendoff TERMINATED: 09/12/2007

represented by Timothy Borne Garrigan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy Borne Garrigan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Curtis William Fenley, III Fenley & Bate 224 E Lufkin Avenue PO Box 450 Lufkin, TX 75901 936/634-3346 Fax: 19366395874 Email: cfenley@fenley-bate.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Travis Paul Clardy Clardy Law Offices PO Box 631918 Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1918 936/564-2500 Fax: 19365692507 Email: travis@clardy-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/25/2006 09/25/2006 09/25/2006 09/25/2006

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (28:0451 Job Discrimination) against National Vision, Inc , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(djh, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
2 Summons Issued as to National Vision, Inc. and mailed to back to atty for service (djh, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (djh, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
Magistrate Consent Form Mailed to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (djh, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)

2 of 9

3/6/2008 3:23 PM

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

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807802118421796-L_3...

09/25/2006 10/11/2006
10/17/2006 10/17/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006 12/28/2006 01/05/2007
01/05/2007 01/09/2007 01/19/2007 01/22/2007 01/22/2007 01/22/2007 01/25/2007 01/25/2007 01/26/2007 01/26/2007

Filing Fee Waived (djh, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
3 MOTION to Intervene Motion for Leave to Intervene by Lisa Arriola, Tiffany McIntee, Martha Padilla, Charlinda Wells. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs-Intervenors' Original Complaint)(Garrigan, Timothy) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
4 National Vision ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by National Vision, Inc.(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
Magistrate Consent Form emailed to National Vision, Inc (kjr, ) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
5 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand to Intervenors' Original Complaint by National Vision, Inc.(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
6 ORDER granting 3 Motion to Intervene . Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 10/30/06. (kjr, ) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
7 Intervenor COMPLAINT , filed by Lisa Arriola, Tiffany McIntee, Martha Padilla, Charlinda Wells.(kjr, ) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
8 NOTICE of Hearing:Management Conference set for 1/26/2007 10:00 AM in (Beaumont) before Judge Thad Heartfield. (mfr, ) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
9 ORDER. Management Conference RESET for 1/26/2007 01:30 PM before Judge Thad Heartfield in Beaumont. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 1/5/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
10 NOTICE by Lisa Arriola Summons (Garrigan, Timothy) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
11 E-GOV SEALED SUMMONS Issued as to S J Charendoff and emailed to atty. (kjr, ) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
12 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Scheduling Deadlines)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
13 NOTICE of Disclosure by Lisa Arriola (Garrigan, Timothy) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
14 NOTICE of Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Boutchee, Kathy) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
15 NOTICE of Disclosure by National Vision, Inc (Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
16 Original ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by S J Charendoff.(Clardy, Travis) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
17 NOTICE of Disclosure by S J Charendoff Initial (Clardy, Travis) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
Magistrate Consent Form Mailed emailed to atty for to S J Charendoff (kjr, ) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
18 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Thad Heartfield : Management Conference held on 1/26/2007. (mfr, ) (Entered: 01/31/2007)

3 of 9

3/6/2008 3:23 PM

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

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807802118421796-L_3...

02/16/2007 02/21/2007
02/22/2007 03/30/2007 04/09/2007 04/09/2007 04/09/2007 04/09/2007 05/02/2007 05/03/2007 05/15/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/25/2007 06/15/2007
06/26/2007

19 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by S J Charendoff. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B-1# 3 Exhibit B-2# 4 Exhibit B-3# 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Clardy, Travis) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
20 RESPONSE in Opposition re 19 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Plaintiffs-Intervenors' Response in Opposition to Defendant Charendoff's Motion to Dismiss filed by Lisa Arriola. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Garrigan, Timothy) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
21 SCHEDULING ORDER setting case-specific deadlines, including date parties should be prepared to try case as 10/1/07. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 2/22/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
22 ORDER denying 19 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 3/30/07. (djh, ) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
23 NOTICE of Disclosure by S J Charendoff Case Specific (Clardy, Travis) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
24 NOTICE of Disclosure by S J Charendoff CASE SPECIFIC (Clardy, Travis) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
25 NOTICE of Disclosure by National Vision, Inc (Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
26 NOTICE of Disclosure by Lisa Arriola (Garrigan, Timothy) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
27 NOTICE of Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Case Specific (Boutchee, Kathy) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
28 NOTICE of Disclosure by National Vision, Inc (Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
29 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by National Vision, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
30 ORDER granting 29 Motion for Protective Order . Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 5/17/07. (djh, ) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
31 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 5/17/07. (djh, ) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
32 NOTICE of Disclosure by S J Charendoff Supplemental Case Specific (Clardy, Travis) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
33 MOTION for Discovery to Extend TIme of Depositions by National Vision, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A Notice McIntee# 2 Exhibit Ex. B Notice Padilla# 3 Exhibit Ex. C Notice Wells# 4 Exhibit Ex. D Notice Arriola# 5 Exhibit Ex. E Reporter's Time Record# 6 Exhibit Ex. F McIntee Deposition# 7 Exhibit Ex. G Padilla Deposition# 8 Exhibit Ex. I Wells Deposition# 9 Exhibit Ex. J Arriola Deposition# 10 Text of Proposed Order Order Extend Time)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
34 RESPONSE in Opposition re 33 MOTION for Discovery to Extend TIme of Depositions Plaintiffs-Intervenors' Response in Opposition to Defendants'

4 of 9

3/6/2008 3:23 PM

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

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807802118421796-L_3...

06/29/2007 07/10/2007 07/13/2007 07/16/2007 07/16/2007 07/16/2007
07/16/2007 07/16/2007
07/16/2007 07/16/2007

Motion to Extend Time and to Reconvene Depositions of the Plaintiffs-Intervenors filed by Lisa Arriola. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D# 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Garrigan, Timothy) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
35 RESPONSE in Opposition re 33 MOTION for Discovery to Extend TIme of Depositions filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Boutchee, Kathy) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
36 ORDER granting 33 Motion to Extend Time and to Reconvene Depositions of Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 7/10/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
37 MOTION for Summary Judgment by S J Charendoff. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Padilla Excerpts# 2 Exhibit B-Arriola Excerpts# 3 Exhibit C-Wells Excerpts# 4 Exhibit D-McIntee Excerpts# 5 Exhibit E-Affidavit# 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Clardy, Travis) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
38 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Martha Padilla by National Vision, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
39 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Tiffany McIntee by National Vision, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
40 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To Tiffany McIntee by National Vision, Inc. Responses due by 8/6/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 11# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 12# 12 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
41 Additional Attachments to Main Document: 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To Tiffany McIntee.. (Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
42 MOTION for Summary Judgment at to Martha Padilla by National Vision, Inc. Responses due by 8/6/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 11# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 12# 12 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
43 Additional Attachments to Main Document: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment at to Martha Padilla.. (Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
44 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Charlinda Wells by National Vision, Inc. Responses due by 8/6/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 11# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 12# 12 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/16/2007)

5 of 9

3/6/2008 3:23 PM

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

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807802118421796-L_3...

07/16/2007
07/16/2007 07/16/2007 07/16/2007 07/17/2007
07/23/2007 07/23/2007
07/23/2007
07/23/2007 07/23/2007 07/23/2007 07/23/2007

45 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Lisa Arriola by National Vision, Inc. Responses due by 8/6/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 10 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
46 Additional Attachments to Main Document: 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Charlinda Wells.. (Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
47 Additional Attachments to Main Document: 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Lisa Arriola.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 12# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 13# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 14# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 15# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 16# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 17)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
48 Additional Attachments to Main Document: 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Lisa Arriola.. (Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
49 ORDER denying as moot 38 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, denying as moot 39 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, striking 40 Motion for Summary Judgment, striking 42 Motion for Summary Judgment, striking 44 Motion for Summary Judgment, striking 45 Motion for Summary Judgment . Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 7/17/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
50 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Motion for Summary Judgment by National Vision, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
51 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to EEOC and Plaintiffs/Intervenors by National Vision, Inc. Responses due by 8/13/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1M# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1P# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 1W# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 8 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
52 Additional Attachments to Main Document: 51 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to EEOC and Plaintiffs/Intervenors.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 11# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 12# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 13# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 14# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 15# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 16# 11 Errata Exhibit 17# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 18# 13 Exhibit Exhibit 19# 14 Exhibit Exhibit 20)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
53 Additional Attachments to Main Document: 51 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to EEOC and Plaintiffs/Intervenors.. (Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
54 Additional Attachments to Main Document: 50 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Motion for Summary Judgment.. (Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
55 ORDER granting 50 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be accepted as filed . Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 7/23/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
56 NOTICE of Disclosure by National Vision, Inc (Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 07/23/2007)

6 of 9

3/6/2008 3:23 PM

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

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807802118421796-L_3...

07/23/2007 07/31/2007 07/31/2007 08/06/2007
08/07/2007 08/07/2007 08/08/2007 08/08/2007 08/08/2007
08/08/2007
08/10/2007

57 RESPONSE to Motion re 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs-Intervenors' Non-Opposition Response to Defendant, Dr. S. J. Charendoff's, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Lisa Arriola. (Garrigan, Timothy) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
58 MOTION Agreed Motion for Supplemental Scheduling Order by Lisa Arriola. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Garrigan, Timothy) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
59 SCHEDULING ORDER: seeting case specific deadlines, including date parties should be ready to try case on 12/3/07. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 7/31/07. (djh, ) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
60 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 51 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to EEOC and Plaintiffs/Intervenors Plaintiffs-Intervenors' Initial Response in Opposition to Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion, and Agreed Request for Additional time to Provide Briefing by Lisa Arriola. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Garrigan, Timothy) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
61 ORDER granting 60 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 51 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 8/17/2007. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 8/7/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
62 RESPONSE in Opposition re 51 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to EEOC and Plaintiffs/Intervenors filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Boutchee, Kathy) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
63 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Agreed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boutchee, Kathy) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
64 ORDER granting 63 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply . Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 8/8/07. (djh, ) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
65 RESPONSE in Opposition re 51 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to EEOC and Plaintiffs/Intervenors Amended filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 11# 13 Text of Proposed Order)(Boutchee, Kathy) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
66 Additional Attachments to Main Document: 65 Response in Opposition to Motion,,.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 11)(Boutchee, Kathy) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
67 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief and Agreed Order by National Vision, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 08/10/2007)

7 of 9

3/6/2008 3:23 PM

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

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807802118421796-L_3...

08/10/2007 08/17/2007
08/22/2007 08/22/2007 08/22/2007 08/24/2007 09/12/2007
09/14/2007 10/04/2007 10/05/2007 10/11/2007 10/24/2007 11/15/2007

68 ORDER granting 67 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. The time is extended to 8/22/07. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 8/10/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
69 RESPONSE in Opposition re 51 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to EEOC and Plaintiffs/Intervenors Plaintiffs-Intervenors' Supplemental Response and Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion filed by Lisa Arriola. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs-Intervenors Exhibits 1, 2, 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d)# 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs-Intervenors Exhibits 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Garrigan, Timothy) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
70 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Reply to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment by National Vision, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
71 REPLY to Response to Motion re 51 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to EEOC and Plaintiffs/Intervenors filed by National Vision, Inc. (Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
72 NOTICE of Disclosure by National Vision, Inc (Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
73 ORDER granting 70 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 8/24/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
74 ORDER granting 37 Defendant Dr. S. J. Charendoff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The claims against Defendant-Intervenor Charendoff made by the Plaintiff-Intervenors are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with all costs to be borne by those incurring same. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 9/12/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
75 HOTLINE ORDER regarding deposition of Samuel Chardendoff. Signed by Judge Don D. Bush on 9/14/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
76 REPORT of Mediation by Harold Kip Glasscock, Jr. Mediation result: Settled(Glasscock, Harold) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
77 ORDER ON CLOSING DOCUMENTS. All parties or their counsel shall submit to the court all papers necessary for the closing of this case and its removal from the active docket of this court on or before November 15, 2007. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 10/5/07. (kjr, ) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
78 Proposed Agreed Judgment Consent Decree. (Boutchee, Kathy) (Entered: 10/11/2007)
79 Consent Decree . Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 10/23/07. (djh, ) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
80 Consent MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs-Intervenors claims against Defendant by National Vision, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Dismissal)(Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 11/15/2007)

8 of 9

3/6/2008 3:23 PM

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

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?807802118421796-L_3...

11/19/2007 11/20/2007

81 NOTICE by National Vision, Inc re 80 Consent MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs-Intervenors claims against Defendant Certificate of Conference (Fenley, Curtis) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
82 ORDER granting 80 Motion to Dismiss. All costs shall be taxed against the party incurring same. The Clerk is directed to close this case file. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 11/20/07. (djh, ) (Entered: 11/20/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/06/2008 15:22:57

PACER Login:

wu0079

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 6

Cost:

eeoc 9:06-cv-00226-TH 0.48

9 of 9

3/6/2008 3:23 PM