Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 1 of 20

SAMUELL. DAVIS.ot MARC C. SAPERSTEIN.a" GARRY R. SALOMON.
PAUL A. GARFIELD••t
KEVIN C. DECIE•• STEVEN BENVENISTI ••
LUIS L. HAQUIA.o .
TERRENCE SMITH •• ROBERTW. ROMANOa STEVEN H. COHEN.o CYNTHIA GILL.o

LAW OFFICES OF
DAVIS, SAPERSTEIN & SALOMON, P.C.
375 CEDAR LANE TEANECK, NJ 07666-3433
FACSIMILE: (201) 692-0444 Email: lawinfo@dsslaw.com
(201) 907-5000
April 20, 2004

800 INMAN AVENUE COLONIA, NJ 07067
(908) 757-0800
110 E 55th St. 12th Fir NE\v YORK, NY 10022
(212) 608-1917 t CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL Any
PENNSYLVANIA DAR • NEW JERSEY BAR. NEW YORK BAR 0
GEORGIA BAR PD.C. BAR 0
REPLY TO TEANECK

United State District Court Clerk M.L King Jr. Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 50 Walnut Street, Room 2037 Newark, New Jersey 07101 Re: EEOC and Fitzpatrick v. Ernst and Young, LLP, et al.
Civil Action No.: 03-CV-4277 (WHW) Dear Sir or Madam:
Please find enclosed the second complaint in intervention filed pursuant to the Order of the Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.M.J. attached.
Please file same and return a copy of the filed complaint so that same may be served on defendant's Ernst & Young, LLP and Beatrice Fernandez.
Very truly yours, DAVIS, SAPERSTEIN & SALOMON, P.C.
CYNTHIA GILL (9879) For the firm
Enclosures cc: Terence R. Cook, Esq. (via facsimile and overnight mail)
Patrick G. Brady, Esq. (via facsimile and overnight mail)
NEW JERSEY. NEW YORK

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHUWN-ISTDEDWSTADToEcSuDmIeSTnRt 2IC1T COFUileRdT04/26/2004 Page 2 of 20 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF
SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

April 12,2004

MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST. ROOM 2037
NEWARK, NJ 07101 973-645-5903

Terrence R. Cook U.S. Equal Employment 0ppOliunity Commission Philadelphia District Office 21 South 5th Street Suite 400 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Cynthia Gill Davis, Sapterstein & Salomon, P.C. 375 Cedar Lane Teaneck, New Jersey 07666
Patrick G. Brady Carpenter, Bennett & Monissey, P.e. Three Gateway Center 100 Mulbeny street Newark, New Jersey 07102

LETTER ORDER FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT RE: EEOC and Fitzpatrick v. Ernst and Young, LLP, et al. Civil Action No. 03-4277 (WHW)
Counsel: Before the Court is a motion to intervene as a plaintiff in the matter of EEOC v. Emst &
Young, et al. (the "Motion") initiated by Jill Fitzpatrick ("Plaintiff'). Defendants Emst & Young, Peter Cahill l and Beatrice Femandez have submitted opposition to the Motion (collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiffs initial Proposed Complaint in Intervention was subsequently amended upon the filing ofDefendants' opposition. The sole issue remaining for the Court to consider in this matter is whether the Court can assert pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims of

lpeter Cahill has been removed as a defendant in the Second Proposed Complaint in Intervention. The defendants in the Motion are Emst & Young and Beatrice Fernandez.

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 3 of 20
defamation (Count VIII) and invasion ofprivacy (Count IX) against Defendants. The COUli decides this matter based upon the written submissions of the pmiies pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78. The Motion is granted.
For a federal court to retain jurisdiction of state law claims under pendent jurisdiction, "the state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact." United Mine Workers ofAmerica v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). Generally, when "without regard for their federal or state character, a plaintiff's claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding, then, assuming substantiality ofthe federal issues, there is power in federal courts to hear the whole." rd. The Third Circuit has developed a three-tier test for analyzing issues ofpendent jurisdiction in Ambromovage v. United Mine Workers ofAmerica, 726 F.2d 972 (3d Cir. 1984). (1) Whether the pendent state claims and the federal claim on which jurisdiction is based derive from a common nucleus of operative facts; (2) whether the exercise of jurisdiction would violate a specific federal policy decision limiting federaljurisdiction; (3) faimess to litigants and judicial economy in the interest of federalism. rd. at 989-91.
Applying the three-tier analysis, the Court finds that it has pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiff s state law claims. First, the common nucleus of operative fact test has been met. Plaintiff alleges that during her employment she filed a claim of discriminatory conduct, namely sexual harassment, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") prior to March 2003 against the Defendants. Plaintiff further alleges that subsequently, in November 2003, Defendants took the basic facts of Plaintiffs case, with inclusions of malicious and false statements regarding her perfonnance, and created a hypothetical situation to be used in their Human Resources training which constituted defamation and invasion of privacy. Defendants contend that Plaintiff did not allege that the defamation and invasion of privacy affected her employment with Defendants, nor

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 4 of 20
did Plaintiffs state law claims relate to the allegations of sexual harassment. Hence, the Court should not exercise pendent jurisdiction. The Court disagrees. Pendent jurisdiction is proper in this case as there is an express causal connection between the underlying sexual harassment claims and the state law claims. In fact, the state law claims would have never arisen if the sexual harassment claims were not filed with the EEOC. The Court finds that this fact is a sufficient "common nucleus" to satisfy the test.
Second, the Comi finds no substantive federal policy that precludes federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff s state claims. Finally, judicial economy and fairness to both parties will not be served if Plaintiffs state claims are brought separately in state court at this juncture. Therefore, pendent jurisdiction will be exercised as to Counts VIII and IX of the Second Proposed Complaint in Intervention. The parties have ten days to appeal this decision.
SO ORDERED.
S/SUSAN D. WIGENTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Orig: Clerk cc: Honorable William H. Walls
Parties File

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 5 of 20

DAVIS, SAPERSTEIN & SALOMON. P.e. 375 Cedar Lane Teaneck, NJ 07666 (201) 907-5000 Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jill Fitzpatrick
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and JILL FITZPATRICK,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ERNST & YOUNG, LLP AND BEATRICE FERNANDEZ,
Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 03cv4277 (WHW)
SECOND COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

Plaintiff, Jill Fitzpatrick ("Fitzpatrick"), by way of this Complaint In Intervention against the Defendants, Ernst & Young, LLP,("Ernst & Young") and Beatrice Fernandez ("Fernandez"), (hereinafter collectively the "Defendants") hereby says:
I. Nature of Action, Jurisdiction, and Venue 1. This is an action seeking equitable and legal relief for (1) sexual harassment; (2) sexual
harassment hostile work environment; (3) quid pro quo sexual harassment; (4) retaliation; (5) sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et. seq., ; (6) sexual harassment hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et. seq., ; (7) quid pro quo sexual harassment in

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 6 of 20
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et. seq., ; (8) defamation; and, (9) invasion of privacy.

2.

This court has jurisdiction due to the nature of the action and the amount in controversy.

Additionally, Fitzpatrick has satisfied all prerequisites to bringing these claims. Fitpatrick

has the right to intervene in this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 2000 (e-S) (f)(l).

3.

Venue is appropriate in this court since Fitzpatrick was employed in the Township of

Lyndhurst, Bergen County, New Jersey; Ernst & Young work in and have an office and

do business in the Township of Lyndhurst, Bergen County, New Jersey; and the causes of

action accrued in Bergen County, New Jersey.

II. Parties

4.

Fitzpatrick was an employee of Ernst & Young and performed administrative duties,

technical support services, and managerial duties at Ernst & Young's facility located in the

Township of Lyndhurst, Bergen County, New Jersey.

5.

Defendants are subject to suit under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

6.

During the relevant time period, Beatrice Fernandez was a supervisory and managerial

employee of Ernst & Young and performed supervisory duties in Defendant's facility

located in the Township of Lyndhurst, Bergen County, New Jersey.

7.

Fernandez is a supervisory and managerial employee of Ernst & Young, had supervisory

authority over Fitzpatrick, and controlled the work conditions of Fitzpatrick's work

environment.

8.

At all times referred to in this complaint, employees of the Corporate Defendant, who are

referred to herein, were acting within the scope of their employment at the workplace

during working hours. Moreover, the Corporate Defendants ratified, embraced and added

to their conduct.

III. Factual Allegations

9.

Fitzpatrick is a woman and a longtime employee of Ernst and Young.

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 7 of 20

10. Fitzpatrick commenced his in employment as a Senior Knowledge Analyst in Technical Support Services (T.S.S.) and rose through the ranks and was promoted to Deployment Manager in T.S.S. in September 2001.
11. In recognition of Fitzpatrick's performance Ernst & Young granted her salary increases and merit bonuses on a consistent basis.
12. Beatrice Fernandez became a supervisor for Ernst & Young in September 2001. At the outset of her supervision of Fitzpatrick, Ms. Fernandez identified herself as a homosexual.
13. Immediately upon her tenure in the Lyndhurst office, Ms. Fernandez began a campaign of inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature directed toward Fitzpatrick.
14. By way of example, and not limitation, on a repeated basis Ms. Fernandez asked me to join her for social outings such as dinner and drinks.
15. Beatrice also asked Fitzpatrick to accompany her on New Year's Eve. 16. When Fitzpatrick declined her invitations, Fernandez's advances escalated and Fernandez
requested that Fitzpatrick and her female companion sleep in her bed while Fitzpatrick watched Fernandez's dogs. 17. This salacious suggestions were made although Fitzpatrick lived less than a mile of Fernandez's home and the care of the dogs did not require Fitzpatrick to stay at Fernandez's home. 18. In early February 2002, Fernandez provided Fitzpatrick with a glowing mid-year review.

19. When Fitzpatrick continued to reject Fernandez's advances, Fernandez engaged in a

campaign of retaliatory conduct including acts of verbal abuse occurring in May 2002,

followed by acts of baseless discipline, and baseless reports of unsatisfactory

performance.

20.

On or about August 27, 2002, Fitzpatrick made a report of a hostile work environment

caused by Fernandez's conduct, Fitzpatrick specifically told Ms. Carey Elias, of the

Human Resources department, of Fernandez's advances, inappropriate comments

regarding Fitzpatrick's prior relationship with an Ernst and Young employee, verbal

harassment, and baseless discipline. During this meeting, Fitzpatrick specifically stated

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 8 of 20
that she viewed Fernandez's conduct was sexual in nature and related to Fernandez's sexual interest. 21. Following, Fitzpatrick's complaints to Human Resources, Fernandez's retaliation continued. As a result of Fitzpatrick's complaints to Human Resources, in early September 2002, Fernandez immediately reduced Fitzpatrick's prior mid-year rating of "Highly Proficient" and "Exceptional" in nearly every category to merely "Proficient" in her annual review. 22. Next, Fernandez forbade Fitzpatrick from participating in the committees and newsletters in which she had previously participated with distinguished recognition. Thirdly, Fernandez revoked Fitzpatrick's flexible work schedule. 23. In mid-September 2002, after Fitzpatrick again complained to Human Resources of Fernandez's adverse acts, harassment, and retaliation, Fernandez took further retaliatory steps and placed Fitzpatrick on a performance improvement plan ("PIP") without any basis. The lack of basis for Fernandez's conduct in placing Fitzpatrick on a PIP was admitted on November 12, 2002 by Fernandez's supervisor, Philip Breetveld, who when reviewing the plan prepared by Fernandez exclaimed" I can't believe that these minor items are on a PIP." To add insult to injury the PIP was dated to commence during Fitzpatrick vacation. 24. Most importantly, this illegal PIP was drafted without an end date. 25. It is clear that Fernandez's illegal conduct has wrecked irreparable harm to Fitzpatrick's career and future with the Company. 26. On or about November 12, 2002, Fitzpatrick again complained to Human Resources of Fernandez's retaliation. Subsequently, Fernandez engaged in further baseless discipline. 27. After the PIP began, Fernandez engaged in inappropriate touching, including an incident in which she touched Fitzpatrick's breasts while using my computer. Upon information and belief Fernandez engaged in similar conduct with Nancy Dodd, who reported the incident to HR in March 2003. 28. In early December 2002 after Fitzpatrick was out on documented sick leave due to severe bronchitis, was disciplined for failing to provide "live communication" with the office

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 9 of 20
although Fitzpatrick followed the Company's policy of leaving a voice mail on a daily basis, on each day of her absence. 29. Not only is the requirement of "live communication" exceSSIve, inconsistent with the Company's employment policies, and only required of Fitzpatrick, but it also is another act of retaliatory conduct resulting from her appropriate complaints of sexual harassment. In f~ct at no time did Fitzpatrick receive any communication from Human Resources that her daily calls regarding her sick time was inappropriate. 30. On or about December 28, 2002 Fitzpatrick's attorney, wrote to Ernst and Young in regard to Fitzpatrick's claims. 31. After Cynthia Gill, Esq. put the company on notice of her sexual harassment and retaliation claims Fitzpatrick was placed on unpaid leave effective February 28,2003. 32. After each incident in which Fitzpatrick complained of harassment or retaliation she was subjected to an adverse act stemming from the company's alleged "investigation" of her claims. 33. The unpaid leave violates the Company's policies. 34. On March 4, 2003, Fitzpatrick forwarded a copy of her Complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Ernst and Young. 35. On March 5, 2003, Fitzpatrick met with Ernst and Young's employee, Peter Cahill, and related to the Company the incidents of harassment that affected her and other incidents in which Fernandez harassed other women, including one in which she stared at the chest of Nancy Dodd and called Krista Jacobitz a female Ernst and Young employee after business hours or on weekends. 36. Upon information and belief Krista Jacobitz and Nancy Dodd corroborated the information Fitzpatrick provided during the investigation. Ms. Dodd related to HR that Fernandez stared at her breast and Ms. Jacobitz confirmed that Fernandez called her at home. 37. Even at the time of Fitzpatrick's, termination she was highly regarded by others within Ernst and Young and was the leading candidate for a position in the Finance Department. In fact, Fitzpatrick was interviewed for the finance position on March 7, 2003 at 2:00 p.m.

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 10 of 20
38. On March 7, 2003 Fitzpatrick sent to Ernst and Young documents supporting her sexual harassment hostile work environment claim including the identity of an Ernst and Young witness, that the Company refused to interview who would confirm Fitzpatrick's complaints that Fernandez requested Fitzpatrick to sleep in her bed.
39. On March 10, 2003, Ernst and Young terminated Fitzpatrick's employment because of Fitzpatrick's complaints of sexual harassment.
40. Fernandez is a members at Ernst & Young upper management. 41. Fernandez possessed a discriminatory as well as a retaliatory intent in relation to her
conduct that affected Fitzpatrick. 42. Said acts of Fernandez constitute aiding and abetting discrimination. 43. Defendants' conduct constituted malicious, especially egregious, willful and wanton acts
in which an award of punitive damages is appropriate. 44. Defendants' adverse conduct continue to this date and is ongoing. 45. On or about September 10,2003, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a
complaint in U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey. The Complaint against Defendant Ernst and Young alleged that during her employment, Jill Fitzpatrick filed a claim for discriminatory conduct. 46. Subsequently, in November 2003, Ernst and Young in its Human Resources training provided to all employees included a hypothetical that closely matches the facts of Jill Fitzpatrick's case. 47. The hypothetical related to an employee named "Jill" who works in the finance department, the same department that Ms. Fitzpatrick worked, who retains an attorney and files a complaint of discrimination during her employment. 48. The hypothetical contained false and defamatory statements of fact that a reasonable person would believe concerned Jill Fitzpatrick and her work performance. 49. These false and defamatory statements include but are not limited to: "After she filed the lawsuit, Jill felt "untouchable in the workplace. She began goofing off, chatting on the phone, taking two hour lunches, and missing deadlines, thinking that she could not be disciplined because she has a lawyer".

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 11 of 20
50. Following Ernst and Young's malicious conduct in publicizing the hypothetical, Ms. Fitzpatrick received numerous calls from Ernst and Young employees related to the training materials and stating that the training materials related to Ms. Fitzpatrick.
51. Defendants' conduct caused Ms. Fitzpatrick to suffer emotional distress. 52. Defendants' conduct related to the use of Ms. Fitzpatrick's name and similar facts as a
training tool for her former co-workers constitutes defamation and false light invasion of pnvacy.
Count I (New Jersey Law Against Discrimination - Sexual Harassment) 53. Fitzpatrick realleges and incorporates herein the above paragraphs. 54. The foregoing facts and circumstances demonstrate that Defendants have violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq., by sexually harassing Fitzpatrick. 55. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of such harassment. 56. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Fitzpatrick has suffered mental anguish, physical discomfort, pain and suffering, shame and embarrassment, and/or aggravation of a previously existing mental or emotional condition. Furthermore, Fitzpatrick has suffered lost wages, a diminished ability to earn a living, and a diminished capacity to enjoy Fitzpatrick's life. Moreover, Fitzpatrick has and/or may have to incur expenses for medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological counseling and care. Fitzpatrick's damages have been experienced in the past, and they will continue into the future. 57. Further, Fitzpatrick has been required to retain an attorney to assist Fitzpatrick III asserting Fitzpatrick's claims and protecting Fitzpatrick's rights.

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 12 of 20
Count II (New Jersey LAD - Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment) 58. Fitzpatrick realleges and incorporates herein the above paragraphs. 59. The foregoing facts and circumstances demonstrate that Defendants have violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq., by submitting Fitzpatrick to hostile work environment sexual harassment. 60. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of such harassment. 61. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Fitzpatrick has suffered mental anguish, physical discomfort, pain and suffering, shame and embarrassment, and/or aggravation of a previously existing mental or emotional condition. Furthermore, Fitzpatrick has suffered lost wages, a diminished ability to earn a living, and a diminished capacity to enjoy Fitzpatrick's life. Moreover, Fitzpatrick has and/or may have to incur expenses for medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological counseling and care. Fitzpatrick's damages have been experienced in the past, and they will continue into the future. 62. Further, Fitzpatrick has been required to retain an attorney to assist Fitzpatrick In asserting Fitzpatrick's claims and protecting Fitzpatrick's rights.
Count III (New Jersey LAD - Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment) 63. Fitzpatrick realleges and incorporates herein the above paragraphs.

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 13 of 20
64. The foregoing facts and circumstances demonstrate that Defendants have violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq., by submitting Fitzpatrick to quid pro quo sexual harassment.
65. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendants have engaged in individual and a pattern and practice of such harassment.
66. The foregoing facts and circumstances demonstrate that Defendants have violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq., by submitting Plaintiff to hostile work environment sexual harassment.
67. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of such harassment.
68. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Fitzpatrick has suffered mental anguish, physical discomfort, pain and suffering, shame and embarrassment, and/or aggravation of a previously existing mental or emotional condition. Furthermore, Fitzpatrick has suffered lost wages, a diminished ability to earn a living, and a diminished capacity to enjoy Fitzpatrick's life. Moreover, Fitzpatrick has and/or may have to incur expenses for medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological counseling and care. Fitzpatrick's damages have been experienced in the past, and they will continue into the future.
69. Further, Fitzpatrick has been required to retain an attorney to assist Fitzpatrick in asserting Fitzpatrick's claims and protecting Fitzpatrick's rights. Count IV (New Jersey Law Against Discrimination - Retaliation/Reprisal)
70. Fitzpatrick realleges and incorporates herein the above paragraphs.

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 14 of 20
71. The foregoing facts and circumstances demonstrate that Defendants have violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, NJ.S.A. 10:5-1 et. seq., by retaliating against Fitzpatrick because Fitzpatrick made complaints that Fitzpatrick was sexually harassed and/or subjected to hostile work environment sexual harassment and/or quid pro quo sexual harassment and or discrimination.
72. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Fitzpatrick has suffered mental anguish, physical discomfort, pain and suffering, shame and embarrassment, and/or aggravation of a previously existing mental or emotional condition. Furthermore, Fitzpatrick has suffered lost wages, a diminished ability to earn a living, and a diminished capacity to enjoy Fitzpatrick's life. Moreover, Fitzpatrick has and/or may have to incur expenses for medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological counseling and care. Fitzpatrick's damages have been experienced in the past, and they will continue into the future.
73. Further, Fitzpatrick has been required to retain an attorney to assist Fitzpatrick m asserting Fitzpatrick's claims and protecting Fitzpatrick's rights.
Count V (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act-Sexual Harassment) 74. Fitzpatrick realleges and incorporates herein the above paragraphs. 75. The foregoing facts and circumstances demonstrate that Defendant Ernst and Young has violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 24 U.S.C. § 2000 et. seq., by sexually harassing Fitzpatrick

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 15 of 20
76. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendant Ernst and Young have engaged in a pattern and practice of such harassment.
77. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant Ernst and Young, Fitzpatrick has suffered mental anguish, physical discomfort, pain and suffering, shame and embarrassment, and/or aggravation of a previously existing mental or emotional condition. Furthermore, Fitzpatrick has suffered lost wages, a diminished ability to earn a living, and a diminished capacity to enjoy Fitzpatrick's life. Moreover, Fitzpatrick has and/or may have to incur expenses for medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological counseling and care. Fitzpatrick's damages have been experienced in the past, and they will continue into the future.
78. Further, Fitzpatrick has been required to retain an attorney to assist Fitzpatrick in asserting Fitzpatrick's claims and protecting Fitzpatrick's rights. Count VI
(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act - Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment)
79. Fitzpatrick realleges and incorporates herein the above paragraphs. 80. The foregoing facts and circumstances demonstrate that Defendant Ernst and Young, has
violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et. seq., by submitting Fitzpatrick to hostile work environment sexual harassment. 81. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendant Ernst & Young, has engaged in a pattern and practice of such harassment.

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 16 of 20
82. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Fitzpatrick has suffered mental anguish, physical discomfort, pain and suffering, shame and embarrassment, and/or aggravation of a previously existing mental or emotional condition. Furthermore, Fitzpatrick has suffered lost wages, a diminished ability to earn a living, and a diminished capacity to capacity to enjoy Fitzpatrick's life. Moreover, Fitzpatrick has and/or may have to incur expenses for medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological counseling and care. Fitzpatrick's damages have been experienced in the past, and they will continue into the future.
83. Further, Fitzpatrick has been required to retain an attorney to assist Fitzpatrick in asserting Fitzpatrick's claims and protecting Fitzpatrick's rights.
Count VII (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act - Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment) 84. Ftzpatrick realleges and incorporates herein the above paragraphs. 85. The foregoing facts and circumstances demonstrate that Defendant Ernst and Young, has violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et. seq., by submitting Fitzpatrick to quid pro quo sexual harassment. 86. The foregoing facts and circumstances demonstrate that Defendant Ernst and Young, has violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq., by submitting Plaintiff to hostile work environment sexual harassment. 87. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendant Ernst and Young, have engaged in a pattern and practice of such harassment.

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 17 of 20
88. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant Ernst and Young, Fitzpatrick has suffered mental anguish, physical discomfort, pain and suffering, shame and embarrassment, and/or aggravation of a previously existing mental or emotional condition. Furthermore, Fitzpatrick has suffered lost wages, a diminished ability to earn a living, and a diminished capacity to enjoy Fitzpatrick's life. Moreover, Fitzpatrick has and/or may have to incur expenses for medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological counseling and care. Fitzpatrick's damages have been experienced in the past, and they will continue into the future.
89. Further, Fitzpatrick has been required to retain an attorney to assist Fitzpatrick in asserting Fitzpatrick's claims and protecting Fitzpatrick's rights. Count VIII (Defamation)
90. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the above paragraphs. 91. The actions of Defendants give rise to the common law claim of defamation. 92. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Fitzpatrick has suffered
mental anguish, physical discomfort, pain and suffering, shame and embarrassment, and/or aggravation of a previously existing mental or emotional condition. Furthermore, Fitzpatrick has suffered lost wages, a diminished ability to earn a living, and a diminished capacity to enjoy Fitzpatrick's life. Moreover, Fitzpatrick has and/or may have to incur expenses for medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological counseling and care. Fitzpatrick's damages have been experienced in the past, and they will continue into the future.

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 18 of 20
93. Further, Fitzpatrick has been required to retain an attorney to assist Fitzpatrick III asserting Fitzpatrick's claims and protecting Fitzpatrick's rights. Count IX (Invasion of Privacy)
94. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the above paragraphs. 95. The actions of Defendants give rise to the common law claim of invasion of privacy. 96. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Fitzpatrick has suffered
mental anguish, physical discomfort, pain and suffering, shame and embarrassment, and/or aggravation of a previously existing mental or emotional condition. Furthermore, Fitzpatrick has suffered lost wages, a diminished ability to earn a living, and a diminished capacity to enjoy Fitzpatrick's life. Moreover, Fitzpatrick has and/or may have to incur expenses for medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological counseling and care. Fitzpatrick's damages have been experienced in the past, and they will continue into the future. 97. Further, Fitzpatrick has been required to retain an attorney to assist Fitzpatrick III asserting Fitzpatrick's claims and protecting Fitzpatrick's rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, as to each and every count, Fitzpatrick demands judgment on each and all of these Counts against the Defendants jointly and severally, as follows:
A. Compensatory damages of not less than $5,000,000; B. Damages for lost wages and benefits, back pay, front pay (or
reinstatement) ; C. Damages for humiliation, mental and emotional distress;

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 19 of 20

D. Statutory damages, if applicable;

E. Punitive damages and or liquidated damages where permitted by law;

F. Attorneys' fees and costs of suit;

G. Lawful interest - including pre-judgment interest on lost wages;

H. Lawful interest - including pre-judgment interest on any wages not paid in

a timely manner; and

1.

Such other, further and different relief as the Court deems fitting, just and

proper.

Fitzpatrick hereby reserves the right to amend this Complaint to supplement or modify the factual

obligations and claims contained herein, based upon information received from the Defendants,

witnesses, experts, and others in the course of discovery in this matter.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND Jill Fitzpatrick requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by her complaint.

Dated:

1

Respectfully submitted,
DAVIS, SAPERSTEIN & SALOMON, P.C. Attorneysfor PlaintiffJill Fitzpatrick
Cynthia Gill, Esq. (9879) Davis, Saperstein & Salomon, P.C. 375 Cedar Lane Teaneck, NJ 07666 (201) 907-5000 (201) 692-0444 (FAX)

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 21 Filed 04/26/2004 Page 20 of 20

 
 Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 29 Filed 12/27/2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Page 1 of 1

EEOC E&Y

:

Civil Action No. 03-4277

Plaintiff (s)

:

vs.

: Defendant(s) :

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

It has been reported to the Court that the above-captioned matter has been settled, therefore,

It is on this 27th day of December 2004,

ORDERED that this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice and without costs, subject to the right of the parties upon good cause shown within 30 days, to reopen the action if the settlement is not consummated. The terms of the settlement agreement are incorporated herein by reference and the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement to enforce its terms.

S/ William H. Walls

 
 Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 30 Filed 01/26/2005 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EEOC E & Y

Plaintiff, v.
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-4277 (WHW) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of January , 2005, for good cause shown, it is hereby

ORDERED that the order of dismissal entered on the docket on January 5, 2004 is hereby

MODIFIED. It is further ORDERED that the parties in the above action are granted an

extension of time, until February 24, 2005, in which to consummate the settlement or to move to

reopen the action upon good cause shown if the settlement is not consummated

IT IS SO ORDERED:

s/William H. Walls, U.S.D.J.

 
 ..~, .iii" , , ,

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 32 Filed 02/17/2005 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and JILL FITZPATRICK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ERNST & YOUNG LLP and BEATRICE ffm.NANDEZ,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 03CV4277 ) ) ) ) Judge Walls ) ) Magistrate Judge Wigenton )

ORDER o.F DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Any and all claims in the Second Complaint in Intervention

against Defendant Beatrice Fernandez be dismissed with prejudice, with each side to pay its own

costs.

....--

ENTERED:_ff.:::::jr:;,::::z~~~1--..L.::.:L,...LL~~

'.-"-

CHDB02 5065R76.1 21-Dcc-04 11 :27

 
 Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 34 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 1 of 7

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
21 South 5th Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2688 Terrence R. Cook, Senior Trial Attorney (TRC 3980)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERNST & YOUNG, LLP,
Defendant.

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 03-CV-4277

)

)

Judge William H. Walls

)

Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton

)

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE

)

)

This Consent Decree is entered into by the Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") and the Defendant, Ernst & Young, LLP, its

representatives and assigns ("Defendant").

On September 9, 2003, the Commission brought this action against Defendant to enforce

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

("Title VII"). The Commission alleged Defendant retaliated against a female employee in the

terms and conditions of her employment and discharged her because of her complaints of a

sexually hostile work environment created by her female supervisor.

This Decree is final and binding between the parties signatory hereto as to all issues

raised in the Commission's Complaint in Civil Action Number 03-4277. In settlement of Civil

-1-

"'. Case<,2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 34 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 2 of 7
Action No. 03-4277, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. This Decree is entered into in compromise of the claims asserted in this civil
action and is neither intended nor construed as an admission of liability by Defendant, who has denied any and all liability.
2. The Commission is the agency of the United States government authorized by Congress to investigate allegations of unlawful employment discrimination, to bring civil actions based upon these allegations of unlawful practices, and to seek relief for individuals affected by such practices.
3. The parties stipulate that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties in this case. The parties further stipulate that venue is appropriate in the District of New Jersey.
4. Nothing in this Consent Decree, either by inclusion or exclusion, shall be construed to limit the obligations of Defendant under Title VII or the EEOC's authority to process or litigate any charge of discrimination now pending or filed in the future against the Defendant.
5. Defendant agrees to comply fully with all of the provisions of Title VII, including its anti-retaliation provisions. This means that Defendant will not take action against.any individual because s/he exercised any of his or her rights under Title VII, including filing a charge, providing testimony or assistance, participating in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII, or opposing any practice that he or she reasonably believed to be unlawful under Title VII.
-2-

, ~.., Ca,ose.' 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 34 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 3 of 7
6. Defendant agrees to pay monetary relief in the total amount of $125,000.00 to Jill Fitzpatrick and her attorneys in full settlement of the claims raised on her behalf against Defendant in the Commission's Complaint. The $125,000.00 will be paid in two separate checks, one check made payable to Jill Fitzpatrick in the amount of eighty-two thousand eight hundred seventy-four dollars and sixty three cents ($82,874.63), less appropriate federal and state payroll and income tax withholding, to be reported as a W-2 type payment to Fitzpatrick, and one check made payable to Davis, Saperstein & Salomon, P.e., in the amount of forty-two thousand one hundred twenty-five dollars and thirty-seven cents ($42,125.37) for attorney's fees and cast to be reported as a lO99 payment to Davis, Saperstein & Salomon, P.e. The checks will be paid within fourteen (14) days of whichever of the following events is later: the date of the Court's approval of the Consent Decree, or the effective date of the Release. The checks will be mailed to Jill Fitzpatrick c/o Cynthia Gill, Esquire, 375 Cedar Lane, Teaneck, New Jersey 07666-3433, and a copy within five business days thereafter to the attention of Terrence R. Cook, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC, 21 South Fifth Street, Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA 19lO6-2515.
7. In order to receive the relief referenced in Paragraph No.6, Ms. Fitzpatrick must execute a Release to be provided by the Defendant and agreed to by Ms. Fitzpatrick's attorney.
8. Within 10 business days after entry of this Decree, Defendant shall post the Notice attached to this Decree as Exhibit 1, at its Lyndhurst, New Jersey Facility, located at 125 Chubb Avenue, on the bulletin boards where notices are customarily posted for the benefit of all employees. The Notice shall remain posted for one (1) year from the date of entry of this Decree. Defendant shall replace said Notice with a legible copy, if the Notice is defaced, removed, or marred in any way. Within ten (lO) business days of the posting ofthe Notice, Defendant will
-3-

••

Ca0-se( 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 34 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 4 of 7

send a copy of the Notice, and an indication of the date and location of its of its posting to the Commission.
9. Defendant agrees that it or a vendor approved by EEOC, will conduct training for all managers and supervisors at the Lyndhurst, New Jersey facility within one year of the filing of this Decree on employee rights and employer obligations under both Title VII and relevant state or local anti-discrimination laws, which training will emphasize what constitutes unlawful harassment and discrimination in the workplace, how to keep the company free from such discrimination, what constitutes unlawful retaliation and will summarize how to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into allegations, complaints or charges of discrimination. Defendant agrees to notify the Commission of the date of the training, and provide information regarding the substantive content of the training to the Commission prior to the training date.
10. In the event of any dispute or question between the Commission and Defendant as to the interpretation or implementation of this Decree, the parties shall attempt to resolve such question informally within thirty (30) days. If the parties are unable to resolve their differences, the issue shall be submitted to Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton for final decision.
11. The parties agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over this Decree for a period of two (2) years after the filing of the Decree in order to enforce its provisions, should this become necessary.
12. The Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
13. This case shall be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice, subject to this Court's jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Consent Decree.

-4-

Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 34 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 5 of 7 14. Each party to this Decree (i.e., The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
and Ernst & Young, LLP) shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees.
-5-

.~ , Ca. se 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 34 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 6 of 7

ERIC S. DREIDAND General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS sociate General Counsel
Regional Attorney

ERNST & YOUNG, LLP
MARCIA E. GOODMAN, ESQUIRE MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW, LLP 190 South La Salle Street Chicago, lllinois 60603-3441 (312)701-7953 Attorneys for the Defendant Ernst & Young,
LLP

~~.[)\~~

Supervisory Trial Attorney
':i~AtU-

TERRENCE R. COOK

\.,

Senior Trial Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Philadelphia District Office 21 South 5th Street, Suite 400

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 440-2688; (215) 440-2848 (FAX)

Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dated:

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:

DATE

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. WALLS, U.S.D.J. -6-

• ,1. - Ca< seI 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 34 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 7 of 7

EXHIBIT 1

NOTICE TO ALL ERNST & YOUNG, LLP EMPLOYEES

This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in EEOC v. Ernst & Young. LLP., Civil Action Number 03-CV4277 (WHW), resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Ernst & Young, LLP ("Ernst & Young").

Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended ("Title Vll"), prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment based upon national origin, sex, race, color or religion. Title Vll further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves of the rights under Title Vll by engaging in protected activities, such as filing a charge of discrimination and/or testifying or participating in a Commission investigation. The EEOC is the federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination. The EEOC has the authority to bring lawsuits in federal court to enforce Title VIT.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Ernst & Young retaliated against a female employee in the terms and conditions of her employment and discharged her because she complained about a sexually hostile work environment. Ernst & Young denies the EEOC's allegations.

To resolve the case, Ernst & Young and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree which provided, among other things, that: (1) Ernst & Young pay monetary relief to the former employee; (2) Ernst & Young will not retaliate against any person because he or she opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VIT, filed a Title Vll charge of discrimination, participated in any Title Vll proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree; and (3) Ernst & Young will train all managers and supervisors regarding all aspects of Title Vll including its antiretaliation provisions.

If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (215) 440-2600. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE

This Notice must remain posted for one (1) year from the date below and must not

be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or

compliance with its terms may be directed to the: Regional Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia

otr~. 2~lh DWri<t

S _ Philad_e_IPf'h..i.a...-,-fp-JA,l.J:I"'9.1.."'0.6...."""'.,J...{,.LIpL=---_ _ _ _ __

. . E al Employment Opportunity Commission
DATED: ----"'~'+/!...:.~1+1-!"'-c:tfJ ):}----

Ernst &
IO! I DATED: ~/8'
r

 
 Case 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Document 35 Filed 02/23/2005 Page 1 of 1

HLC£I"ED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURt"lt I. i,~H r WAt SH. CI. ER';

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NF;W JF;RSEY
ZOOS FEB 23 P 2: 0e

EQUAL" EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and JILL FITZPATRICK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ERNST & YOUNG LLP and
BEATRICE FERNANDEZ,
Defendants.

)

)

lJNIlED STATTS

)

DI:nRICr CtlUffi

)

) Civil Action No, 03CV4277

)

)

)

) Judge Walls

Magistrate Judge Wigcnton

ORDER OF DISMISSAl. WITH PRE.IUDICE

IT IS I IRREI3Y ORDERED: Any and all claims in the Second Complaint in Intervention

against Defendant Ernst & Young LLP be dismissed with prejudice, with each side to pay its

own costs.

ENTERED:

ClIV002 507~\llJ.1 li·Feb,OS 14;41

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Doc... https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?908895889339469-L_35...
12BL, CLOSED, RULE16, SCHEDO
U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Newark) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPP v. ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, et al Assigned to: Judge William H. Walls Referred to: Magistrate Judge S. D. Wigenton Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 09/10/2003 Date Terminated: 12/27/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by TERRENCE R. COOK US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE 21 SOUTH 5TH STREET SUITE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 (215) 440-2688 Email: terrence.cook@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff
JILL FITZPATRICK TERMINATED: 01/27/2004

represented by CYNTHIA GILL DAVIS, SAPTERSTEIN & SALOMON, P.C. 375 CEDAR LANE TEANECK, NJ 07666 201-907-5000 Email: cgill@dsslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant ERNST & YOUNG, LLP

represented by PATRICK G. BRADY MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY AND CARPENTER LLP THREE GATEWAY CENTER 100 MULBERRY STREET NEWARK, NJ 07102-4079 (973) 622-7711 Email: pbrady@mdmc-law.com

1 of 5

5/3/2007 4:08 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Doc... https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?908895889339469-L_35...

Intervenor Defendant ERNST & YOUNG, LLP
Intervenor Defendant PETER CAHILL TERMINATED: 04/13/2004 Intervenor Defendant BEATRICE FERNANDEZ Intervenor Plaintiff JILL FITZPATRICK

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK G. BRADY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THOMAS C. BIGOSINSKI MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP 1300 MOUNT KEMBLE AVENUE MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962-2075 (973) 993-8100 Email: tbigosinski@mdmc-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by THOMAS C. BIGOSINSKI (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CYNTHIA GILL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/10/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/10/2003 09/12/2003 09/12/2003 11/10/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; jury demand FILING FEE $ wv (MD) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
2 NOTICE of Allocation and Assignment filed. ( Newark - Judge Walls Magistrate Judge Wigenton) (NM) (MD) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for ERNST & YOUNG, LLP ( 20 Days) (Mailed to Counsel) (MD) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
3 Notice of MOTION to intervene by JILL FITZPATRICK by JILL FITZPATRICK, Motion set for 12/8/03 on [3-1] motion w/cert of service attached (Brief/PO Subm) (jd) (Entered: 11/12/2003)

2 of 5

5/3/2007 4:08 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Doc... https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?908895889339469-L_35...

11/19/2003 11/24/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003 12/19/2003 12/24/2003 12/29/2003 01/09/2004 01/12/2004
01/12/2004 01/20/2004 01/22/2004 02/13/2004
02/13/2004

4 APPLICATION by ERNST & YOUNG, LLP and Clerk's Order extending time to answer. Answer due 12/9/03 for ERNST & YOUNG, LLP (jd) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
5 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to ERNST & YOUNG, LLP 11/3/03 Answer due on 11/24/03 for ERNST & YOUNG, LLP (jd) (Entered: 12/01/2003)
6 ANSWER to Complaint by ERNST & YOUNG, LLP w/cert of servixe attached (jd) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
7 Corporate Disclosure STATEMENT by ERNST & YOUNG, LLP (jd) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
8 ORDER granting [3-1] motion to intervene by JILL FITZPATRICK; terminating [3-2] hearing Motion set for 12/8/03 on [3-1] motion ( signed by Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton ) (NM) (jd) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
9 ORDER, setting scheduling conference for 11:00 3/26/04 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton ) (NM) (jd) (Entered: 12/19/2003)
10 Intervenor's COMPLAINT w/jury demand by JILL FITZPATRICK against ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, Peter Cahill and Beatrice Fernandez (jd) (Entered: 12/24/2003)
11 Amended ORDER, setting scheduling conference for 11:00 3/26/04 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton ) (NM) (jd) Modified on 12/29/2003 (Entered: 12/29/2003)
Summons Issued as to PETER CAHILL, ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, BEATRICE FERNANDEZ.(Intervenor)Days Due - 20.(Directly to Counsel) (MD, ) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
12 MOTION for pro hac vice admission of Marcia E. Goodman and Maritoni D. Kane by ERNST & YOUNG, LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Patrick C. Brady# 2 declaration of Maritoni D. Kane# 3 Declaration of Marcia E. Goodman# 4 prposed order# 5 cert of service)(jd, ) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
Set Deadlines as to 12 MOTION for pro hac vice admission Motion Hearing set for 2/9/2004 10:00 AM in Newark - Courtroom 2D before Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton. (jd, ) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
13 ORDER granting re 12 MOTION for pro hac vice admission of Marcia E.Goodman and Maritoni D. Kane filed by ERNST & YOUNG, LLP. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 1/20/04. (jd, ) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
14 ORDER vacating the order granting the motion to intervene, filed by Jill Fitzpatrick and entered on 12/9/03. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 1/22/04. (jd, ) (Entered: 01/27/2004)
15 SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 3/31/2004 12:30 PM in Newark - Courtroom 2D before Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton. Discovery due by 8/30/2004; etc.. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 1/13/04. (sr, ) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
16 MOTION to Intervene w/brief and cert of service attached by JILL FITZPATRICK. (jd, ) (Entered: 02/25/2004)

3 of 5

5/3/2007 4:08 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Doc... https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?908895889339469-L_35...

02/13/2004 02/27/2004 03/02/2004 03/31/2004 04/12/2004 04/26/2004 06/11/2004 06/11/2004 06/25/2004 07/07/2004 09/13/2004 09/13/2004 10/15/2004 10/18/2004 11/23/2004

Set Deadlines as to 16 MOTION to Intervene. Motion Hearing set for 3/8/2004 10:00 AM in Newark - Courtroom 4D before Judge William H. Walls. (jd, ) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
17 BRIEF in partial Opposition re 16 MOTION to Intervene filed by ERNST & YOUNG, LLP. (jd, ) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
18 Letter-BRIEF w/proposed complaint in intervention attached filed by JILL FITZPATRICK. (jd, ) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
19 ORDER Status Conference set for 7/13/2004 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton.. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 3/31/04. (jd, ) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
20 ORDER granting 16 Motion to Intervene . Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 4/12/04. (jd, ) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
21 Second Intervenor COMPLAINT agst Ernst & Young, LLP and Beatrice Fernandez; jury demand , filed by JILL FITZPATRICK.(jd, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
22 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by ERNST & YOUNG, LLP. EQUAL EMPOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION waiver sent on 6/7/2004, answer due 8/6/2004. (GILL, CYNTHIA) (Entered: 06/11/2004)
23 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by BEATRICE FERNANDEZ. EQUAL EMPOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION waiver sent on 6/7/2004, answer due 8/6/2004. (GILL, CYNTHIA) (Entered: 06/11/2004)
24 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, BEATRICE FERNANDEZ.(BIGOSINSKI, THOMAS) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
25 ORDER Status Conference set for 9/13/2004 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton. The conference scheduled for 7/13/04 is canceled. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 7/6/04. (jd, ) (Entered: 07/07/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan D. Wigenton : Telephone Status Conference held on 9/13/2004. (em, ) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
26 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 10/15/2004 12:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton.. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 9/13/04. (jd, ) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan D. Wigenton : Settlement Conference held on 10/15/2004. (em, ) (Entered: 10/18/2004)
27 ORDER Discovery due by 12/30/2004. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/23/2005 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Susan D. Wigenton, etc.. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 10/15/04. (sr, ) (Entered: 10/18/2004)
28 PROTECTIVE ORDER is to limit the disclosure of confidential information produced during discovery to the parties and certain other necessary persons as described herein. etc.. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 11/17/04. (JB, ) (Entered: 11/24/2004)

4 of 5

5/3/2007 4:08 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Doc... https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?908895889339469-L_35...

12/08/2004 12/27/2004 01/26/2005
02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/22/2005 02/23/2005 03/04/2005

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan D. Wigenton : Settlement Conference held on 12/8/2004. (Tape #Cv..) (em, ) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
29 ORDER DISMISSING CASE as settled, w/out prejudice and w/out costs. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 12/27/04. (jd, ) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
30 ORDER that the order of dismissal entered 1/5/05 is hereby Modified. The parties are granted an extension of time, until 2/24/05 in which to consummate the settlement, etc.. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 1/24/05. (jd, ) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
31 APPLICATION/Motion for dismissal, w/prejudice any and all claims agst deft Beatrice Fernandez for by JILL FITZPATRICK. (jd, ) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
32 ORDER that any and all claims in the Second Complaint in Intervention agst deft Beatrice Fernandez be dismissed w/prejudice, etc.. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 2/15/05. (jd, ) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
33 APPLICATION/Motion for dismissal w/prejudice any and all claims agst deft Ernst & Young LLP by JILL FITZPATRICK. (jd, ) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
34 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consent Decree by EQUAL EMPOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (COOK, TERRENCE) (Entered: 02/22/2005)
35 ORDER dismissing w/prejudice any and all claims in the Second Complaint in Intervention agst deft Ernst & Young LLP . Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 2/23/05. (jd, ) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
36 ORDER/CONSENT DECREE; case is dimissed w/prejudice, subject to this court's jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Consent Decree, etc. . Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 3/3/05. (jd, ) (Entered: 03/04/2005)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/03/2007 17:11:12

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

nniles

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:03-cv-04277-WHW-SDW Start date: 1/1/1970 End date: 5/3/2007

Billable Pages:

3

Cost: 0.24

5 of 5

5/3/2007 4:08 PM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - March 2005

Page 1 of 1

z EEOC v. Ernst & Young, LLP No. 03-CV-4277 (D.N.J. March 5, 2005)
The Philadelphia District Office alleged that Ernst & Young, a large accounting firm with offices in 140 countries, retaliated against a female employee at its Lyndhurst, New Jersey facility because she complained about offensive sexual conduct by her female supervisor. Charging party was a manager in defendant's technical support services division. After she first complained that her female supervisor was sexually harassing her, defendant gave charging party a significantly lower than usual performance rating and revoked her flexible work schedule. Charging party filed a second internal complaint, calling attention to retaliation she was experiencing, and a few days later was placed on a performance improvement plan. Charging party filed a charge with the EEOC and defendant terminated her less than a week later. Under the 2-year consent decree resolving the case, the charging party will receive $125,000 in monetary relief.

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement03-05.html

5/14/2007