IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

04-cv-3331 (PBT)

)

)

SECOND AMENDED

) COMPLAINT

)

) JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices that discriminate on the basis of race, and to provide appropriate relief to Joyce Johnson-Clayter, who was adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in Paragraph 7 below, the Commission alleges that Defendant Employer, Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Allstate” or “Defendant Employer”), discriminated against Ms. Johnson-Clayter when it failed to address her complaints of discrimination and subsequently terminated her employment because of her race, Black. The Commission contends that Defendant Employer subjected Ms. Johnson-Clayter to disparate treatment by highly criticizing and scrutinizing her work, while failing to subject similarlysituated White employees to the same treatment. As a result of the discrimination, Ms. JohnsonClayter suffered monetary damages as well as emotional distress.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"),and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "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) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company (the "Employer"), has continuously been doing business in the State of Pennsylvania and the City of Reading, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ms. Johnson-Clayter filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All
2

conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least January 2001, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful
employment practices at its Reading, Pennsylvania facility in violation of Section 703 (a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). These practices include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Ms. Johnson-Clayter began her employment in or about July 1987 with CNA Personal Insurance. On or about January 1, 2000, Defendant Employer acquired CNA Personal Insurance, and later renamed the company Encompass Insurance.
(b) From January 1, 2000, until her discriminatory discharge on May 7, 2002, Ms. JohnsonClayter held the position of Senior Customer Service Representative with Encompass Insurance.
(c) In or about January 2000, David Hugenbrach became Ms. Johnson-Clayter’s supervisor. Soon after reporting to Hugenbrach, he began subjecting Ms. Johnson-Clayter to disparate treatment by excessively scrutinizing her performance, criticizing her work, threatening to fire her on a regular basis, and restricting her lunch schedule. White co-workers were not treated in this manner.
(d) In early 2001, Hugenbrach told Ms. Johnson-Clayter that she was “too ethnic” and “too animated.” Ms. Johnson-Clayter believed these comments referenced her race because she was the only Black employee in her department.
(e) In January 2001, Hugenbrach demanded that Ms. Johnson-Clayter not verbally express herself at the staff meetings because she was “too frightening,” “too loud,” “too negative,” and “too scary.” Ms. Johnson-Clayter believed that Hugenbrach made these comments because of her race.
(f) Throughout 2000-2002, Defendant subjected Ms. Johnson-Clayter to disparate treatment when Hugenbrach repeatedly counseled her for her performance and subsequently issued her Performance Improvement Notifications. Similarly situated White employees who failed to achieve
3

Defendant’s expectations were neither counseled, nor issued Requires Improvement Performance Notifications.
(g) On January 29, 2001, Ms. Johnson-Clayter received a performance evaluation of “Meets Expectations.” Nonetheless, two weeks later, on February 12, 2001, Defendant issued Ms. JohnsonClayter a Requires Improvement Notification, citing performance incidents from 2000, even though she had just received a satisfactory performance evaluation for her performance in 2000.
(h) On April 12, 2001, Defendant Employer notified Ms. Johnson-Clayter that she successfully met the requirements of the Requires Improvement Notice and that her performance was again rated as “Meets Expectation.”
(i) On July 3, 2001, Ms. Johnson-Clayter received a merit increase. However, less than one month after the merit increase, Defendant issued her another Requires Improvement Notification.
(j) On October 9, 2001, Defendant Employer placed Ms. Johnson-Clayter on a Job in Jeopardy Notice for sixty (60) days. Ms. Johnson-Clayter successfully completed the sixty (60) day period on December 10, 2001. Defendant Employer again stated that Ms. Johnson-Clayter’s performance “Meets Expectation.”
(k) On February 8, 2002, Ms. Johnson-Clayter received her annual performance rating for the 2001 calendar year with a rating of “Meets Expectation.”
(l) Prior to reporting to Defendant’s Supervisor Manager David Hugenbrach, Ms. JohnsonClayter never experienced the type of scrutiny she experienced under Hugenbrach, nor received any Requires Improvement Notifications or Job in Jeopardy Notices.
(m) Due to continuous scrutiny and disparate treatment by Hugenbrach, Ms. JohnsonClayter complained to Defendant Employer’s Human Resource Manager, Wayman Clark, that she
4

believed that she was being subjected to race discrimination by Hugenbrach. Clark responded that he was “tired of Black employees thinking that he would agree with them.” Despite Defendant’s anti-discrimination policy, which mandated that complaints of discrimination be investigated, Clark failed to initiate or conduct any investigation into Ms. Johnson-Clayter’s complaints.
(n) As a result of Defendant’s refusal to address Ms. Johnson-Clayter’s complaints of discrimination, she was forced to remain under Hugenbrach’s supervision and continued to be subjected to disparate treatment and excessive scrutiny by Hugenbrach because of her race.
(o) Ms. Johnson-Clayter repeatedly requested of both Hugenbrach and Clark that she be transferred to another department. Hugenbrach allowed two white employees with performance concerns to transfer to different departments, but refused to permit Ms. Johnson-Clayter to transfer to another department, despite the availability of positions for which she was qualified.
(p) On May 7, 2002, Defendant terminated Ms. Johnson-Clayter’s employment because of her race. Defendant Employer alleged she was terminated for performance problems.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7 (a) through (p) above has been to deprive Ms. Johnson-Clayter of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her race.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 (a) through (p) above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 (a) through (p) above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Johnson-Clayter.
5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in employment practices which discriminate on the basis of race. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carryout policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Blacks, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Johnson-Clayter, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful- place reinstatement of Ms. Johnson-Clayter, or frontpay in lieu thereof if reinstatement is not feasible. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Johnson-Clayter, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7(a) through (p) above, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Clayter by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7(a) through (p) above, including emotional pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment and loss of life’s pleasures, in amounts to be determined at trial. F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Ms. Johnson-Clayter punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7(a) through (p) above, in amounts to be
6

determined at trial. G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
interest. H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
7

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR Regional Attorney __________________________ MARY M. TIERNAN Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney
DME 3496 DAWN M. EDGE Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Philadelphia District Office 21 South 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2687 (215) 440-2848 (FAX)
8

 
 KOZLOFF STOUDT
Professional Corporation
By: Jeffrey R. Elliott, Esquire 2640 Westview Drive P.O. Box 6286 Wyomissing, PA 19610 (610) 670-2552

Attorneys for Intervenor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY : CIVIL ACTION

COMMISSION,

: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff

:

:

v.

: No. 04-3331

:

JOYCE JOHNSON-CLAYTER,

:

Intervenor :

:

ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC., a

:

subsidiary of ALLSTATE

:

CORPORATION,

:

Defendant :

:

and

: Assigned to:

J.

COMPLAINT
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over Intervenor’s/Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201, 2002, 1331(a), 1343; 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq. as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, et seq.; the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, 42 U.S.C. Section 200e-5(f); and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1

1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 and the Civil
Rights Act of 1991.
2. Intervenor has complied with all jurisdiction prerequisites, including those set forth in 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f), and has exhausted all required state and federal administrative remedies, including proceeding before the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
3. The amount in controversy exceeds One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($150,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.
4. Defendant transacts business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; is engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce; employs in excess of fifteen (15) individuals; and the acts in question were committed at Defendant’s facility in Pottstown, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
PARTIES 5. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is an administrative agency of the United States Government, with an address of 1801 L Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20507. 6. Intervenor, Joyce Johnson-Clayter, is a female citizen of the United States of America and, during all relevant time periods, has resided in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with an address of 819 Weiser Street, Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania, 19601. 7. Defendant, Encompass Insurance, Inc., a subsidiary of Allstate Corporation is a corporation registered and authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, having an address of 401 Penn Street, Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania, 19601. 8. Defendant is engaged in the business of insurance.
2

9. 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. Section 2000e(b), (g), and (h).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10. Intervenor was hired by Defendant’s predecessor, CNA Personal Insurance in July of 1987. On or about January 1, 2000, Defendant acquired CNA Personal Insurance and later renamed the company “Encompass Insurance.” 11. During her employment, from July of 1987 through May 7, 2002, Intervenor worked as a customer service representative, last holding the job title of “Senior Customer Service Representative” and carried out all other required duties for employer. 12. Beginning in January of 2000, and continuing until May 7, 2002, Intervenor was continuously subjected to offensive, racially based comments, and disparate treatment based upon race by her supervisor, David Hugenbrach. 13. The disparate treatment by Hugenbrach included, but was not limited to:
a) excessive scrutiny of performance; b) excessive and unwarranted criticism of Intervenor’s work; c) threats to terminate Intervenor’s employment on a regular basis,
without legitimate business or disciplinary justification; d) restricting Intervenor’s lunch schedule; e) telling Intervenor that she was “too ethnic” and “too animated” in
a manner clearly referring to her race (African-American) Black; and, f) demanding that Intervenor not speak at staff meetings, because she was “too frightening,” “too loud,” and “too negative.” 14. Intervenor complained to Hugenbrach regarding the conduct in question. 15. Intervenor complained to Defendant’s Human Resource Manager, Wayman Clark, regarding the conduct of Hugenbrach, and its offensive nature. Clark replied that he was “tired of Black employees thinking he would agree with them.”
3

16. No supervisor, manager, office or director of Defendant investigated or stopped the conduct.
17. Hugenbrach engaged in the above-cited conduct on a continuous and regular, if not daily basis from January of 2001 through May 7, 2002, despite being told repeatedly by Intervenor to cease and desist from the offensive behavior in question.
18. On May 7, 2002, Intervenor’s employment was terminated for unlawful and reasons, including but not limited to Intervenor’s race, and/or in retaliation for having made complaints of discrimination.
19. At all times material and relevant hereto, Defendant had no equal employment opportunity policy or policy against race-based harassment and discrimination in place in their workplace. Alternately, any such policy which Defendant may claim to have in place was at all times material and relevant hereto inadequate, incomplete, ineffective, and legally insufficient.
20. At all times material and relevant hereto, Defendant conducted no “sensitivity training” or anti-harassment training on the subject of racial discrimination and/or harassment. Alternatively, any such training conducted by Defendant or purporting to be such training, was inadequate, incomplete, ineffective, and legally insufficient.
21. At all times material and relevant hereto, Defendant had no complaint or investigative procedures in place by which an employee subjected to racial harassment and/or discrimination could reasonably complain to Defendant for remedy; or cause a complaint of racial harassment and/or discrimination to be investigated promptly.
22. Intervenor, on or about September 3, 2002 filed a Complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming employment discrimination on the basis of her race (African American/Black) Defendant in violation of federal and state civil rights laws.
23. Subsequently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission subsequently reached a “determination” that Intervenor had been repeatedly subjected
4

to race-based discrimination by Defendant’s owners and supervisors while employed by Defendant.
24. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission subsequently filed a Complaint against Defendant on July 15, 2004, which was amended on or about August 13, 2004, alleging race-based discrimination against Intervenor and other female employees of Defendant.
25. Intervenor filed a Motion for Intervention in the instant case, based, inter alia, upon intervention as a matter of right conferred by 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1).
26. This Court subsequently granted the Motion for Intervention, and permitted the intervention in this case by Intervenor.
CLAIMS COUNT I RACE-BASED HARASSMENT UNDER SECTION 706 OF TITLE VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e5(f) 27. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 26, above, are incorporated by reference as if the same were set forth more fully at length herein. 28. The above-referenced acts by Intervenor’s/Plaintiff’s supervisors and coworkers all of whom were employees of Defendants, were pervasive, severe and regular. 29. The acts in question detrimentally affected Intervenor, and caused physical and psychological injury. 30. The offensive remarks, overbearing scrutiny, and unwarranted criticism, disciplinary actions, restrictions, and ultimate retaliation for making legitimate complaints of discrimination, up to and including termination of employment, would detrimentally affect a reasonable person of the same race as Intervenor (AfricanAmerican/Black) in that position. 31. Hugenbrach, one of the perpetrators of this conduct, during all times relevant to this action was an employee of Defendant, giving rise to liability to Defendant under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
5

32. The conduct in question by Hugenbrach and by Clark of making racially discriminatory remarks, criticisms, disciplinary actions, restrictions, and retaliatory behavior, created a hostile and offensive work environment for Intervenor.
33. Defendant knew or had reason to know of the conduct of its employee toward and in the presence of Intervenor, based upon reports of the conduct by Intervenor and other employees on the same shift and job site and working at the same time as Intervenor to her managers and supervisors, but failed to take action sufficient to stop this offensive conduct.
34. The acts in question were not isolated incidents. 35. The above-referenced actions constituted hostile work environment racial discrimination and harassment. 36. Intervenor, by the conduct set forth at length above, was harassed and discriminated against because of her race (African-American/Black), and suffered retaliation for making complaints of the same. 37. The acts, failures to act, practices, and policies of Defendant, its owner, supervisors, manager, and employees, as set forth above constitute racial discrimination and race-based harassment in violation of Section 706 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 200e-5. 38. Defendant has no defense to these claims, as it has failed or refused to take all reasonable steps required by law to prevent and/or remedy the hostile workplace environment described herein. WHEREFORE, Intervenor, Joyce Johnson-Clayter, respectfully requests judgment in her favor, and against Defendant, and an award granting her relief including but not limited to the following:
a) Back pay and all other benefits, perquisites, and compensation which Plaintiff would have received since May 7, 2002 had she maintained her employment with Defendant, including but not limited to lost wages, pay increases, and bonuses;
b) Front pay;
6

c) Reimbursement for all costs, expenses, and financial losses Plaintiff has incurred as a result of the above-described actions;
d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; e) Compensatory damages; f) Punitive Damages; and, g) Such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT II RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION UNDER SECTION 706 OF TITLE VII, 42
U.S.C. SECTION 2000e-5 39. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 38, above, are incorporated by reference as if the same were set forth more fully at length herein. 40. The conduct of owners, employees, supervisors and managers, as set forth above, is attributable to Defendant under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 41. The conduct in question was directed to Intervenor due to her race (African-American/Black). 42. The termination of Intervenor’s/Plaintiff’s employment by Defendant was the direct and proximate result of Intervenor’s/Plaintiff’s race and/or complaints of racial discrimination and harassment and in retaliation therefore. 43. The acts, failures to act, practices, and polices of Defendant, as set forth above, constitute unlawful and intentional discrimination against Plaintiff because of her race, i.e., African-American/Black, in violation of Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5. WHEREFORE, Intervenor, Joyce Johnson-Clayter, respectfully requests judgment in her favor, and against Defendant, and an award granting her relief including but not limited to the following:
a) Back pay and all other benefits, perquisites, and compensation which Plaintiff would have received since May 7, 2002 had she maintained her
7

employment with Defendant, including but not limited to lost wages, pay increases, and bonuses;
b) Front pay; c) Reimbursement for all costs, expenses, and financial losses Plaintiff has incurred as a result of the above-described actions; d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; e) Compensatory damages; f) Punitive Damages; and, g) Such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT III INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 44. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 43, above, are incorporated by reference as if the same were set forth more fully at length herein. 45. David Hugenbrach, from January 1, 2000 through May 7, 2002, continuously made blatant, offensive, racially discriminatory remarks toward and in the presence of Intervenor, in spite of being told by Intervenor that she found such remarks to be offensive. 46. Owners, managers and supervisors of Defendant, Wayman Clark, routinely, during the time period between January 1, 2000 to May 7, 2002, turned a blind eye to the discrimination and harassment to which Intervenor was subjected as described herein. 47. All the above-mentioned individuals, including owners, supervisors and managers, continued in the described course of conduct, in spite of being told repeatedly by Intervenor to cease and desist from such conduct, and Intervenor’s/Plaintiff’s repeated complaints. 48. Intervenor repeatedly complained to owners, supervisors, and managers of this conduct, but her complaints were ignored, scoffed at, and were not investigated, and the perpetrators were not stopped from continuing this course of conduct.
8

49. The statements and actions in question were made by supervisory and managerial personnel of Defendant, and by its employees, managers, and supervisors, in the regular course and scope of employment.
50. Defendant is liable for the acts of its owners, employees, managers, and supervisors within the scope of employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
51. The acts and omissions, were extreme, outrageous, and highly offensive to Intervenor as an African-American/Black of normal sensibilities and sensitivity.
52. Defendant knew, had reason to know, or should have known that the conduct in question would cause severe emotional, physical and psychological harm to Intervenor.
53. As a direct and proximate result of this conduct, Intervenor has been and is greatly injured in her good name, credit, and reputation, to her great financial loss and detriment.
54. As a direct and proximate cause of this conduct, Intervenor has suffered severe emotional distress, pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment, and injury resulting from this emotional distress.
55. Solely as a result of the aforesaid injuries, Intervenor has been and in the future will be forced to incur significant expenses in seeking and securing medical and psychological treatment and counseling in an effort to cure herself of these injuries.
56. Solely as a result of the aforesaid injuries, Intervenor has been and in the future may be prevented from attending to her usual and customary occupation and duties, to her great financial detriment and loss.
WHEREFORE, Intervenor, Joyce Johnson-Clayter, respectfully requests judgment in her favor, and against Defendant, and an award granting her relief including but not limited to the following:
a) Back pay and all other benefits, perquisites, and compensation which Plaintiff would have received since May 7, 2002 had she maintained her employment with Defendant, including but not limited to lost wages, pay increases, and bonuses;
9

b) Front pay; c) Reimbursement for all costs, expenses, and financial losses Plaintiff has incurred as a result of the above-described actions; d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; e) Compensatory damages; f) Punitive Damages; and, g) Such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT IV VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT 57. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 67, above, are incorporated by reference as if the same were set forth more fully at length herein. 58. The above-referenced actions violate the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment, including but not limited to, adverse employment action, based upon race. WHEREFORE, Intervenor, Joyce Johnson-Clayter, respectfully requests judgment in her favor, and against Defendant, and an award granting her relief including but not limited to the following:
a) Back pay and all other benefits, perquisites, and compensation which Plaintiff would have received since May 7, 2002 had she maintained her employment with Defendant, including but not limited to lost wages, pay increases, and bonuses;
b) Front pay; c) Reimbursement for all costs, expenses, and financial losses Plaintiff has incurred as a result of the above-described actions; d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; e) Compensatory damages; and,
10

f) Such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. KOZLOFF STOUDT
Professional Corporation
_____/s/_____________________ Jeffrey R. Elliott, Esquire Attorneys for Intervenor
11

KOZLOFF STOUDT
Professional Corporation
By: Jeffrey R. Elliott, Esquire 2640 Westview Drive P.O. Box 6286 Wyomissing, PA 19610 (610) 670-2552

Attorneys for Intervenor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY : CIVIL ACTION

COMMISSION,

: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff

:

:

v.

: No. 04-3331

:

ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC., a :

subsidiary

of

ALLSTATE :

CORPORATION,

:

Defendant :

:

and

:

:

JOYCE JOHNSON-CLAYTER,

:

Intervenor : Assigned to:

J.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, JEFFREY R. ELLIOTT, ESQUIRE, and Kozloff Stoudt, Attorneys for Intervenor, Joyce
Johnson-Clayter, certify that on March __, 2005, the foregoing Complaint was served upon the
following party via U.S. First Class Mail:
Marisol Ramos, Esquire U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
21 South 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515

Marjorie A. George, Esquire Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorneys for Encompass Insurance/Allstate Insurance Company
This Certificate is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
KOZLOFF STOUDT
Professional Corporation
____/s/______________________ Jeffrey R. Elliott, Esquire

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

:

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC.,

:

:

Defendant.

:

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-3331

ORDER

AND NOW, on this 12th day of December, 2005, upon consideration of the Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12), the Intervenor’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 13), and Defendant’s Reply (Doc. 18), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART 1 and

DENIED IN PART.2

1 Johnson-Clayter’s claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) is dismissed as time barred. In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations for an IIED claim is two years. See 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 5524. Allstate terminated Johnson-Clayter’s employment on May 7, 2002. Compl. ¶ 18. Johnson-Clayter filed her motion to intervene on September 29, 2004. See Doc. 5. The EEOC filed its complaint on July 15, 2004. Compl. ¶ 25. Therefore, this Court must decide whether the statute of limitations was tolled while the EEOC reviewed Johnson-Clayter’s complaint. Courts in this district have held that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not toll the statute of limitations for related state tort claims because of the pendency of a discrimination charge before the EEOC. See e.g. Hartman v. Sterling, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18140 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 10, 2003) (Van Antwerpen, J.). This Court also finds that the statute should not toll. Consequently, Defendant’s Motion to dismiss the IIED claim is granted.
2
The Court finds that the Complaint sets forth a valid claim for Title VII discrimination. To state a claim for hostile work environment discrimination “a plaintiff must show: (1) that he or she suffered intentional discrimination because of race; (2) the discrimination was pervasive and regular; (3) the discrimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff; (4) the discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person of the same race in that position; and (5) the existence of respondeat superior liability.” Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1081 (3d Cir. 1996). The Plaintiff has an obligation to establish “by the totality of the circumstances, the existence of a hostile or abusive environment which is severe enough to affect the psychological stability of a minority employee.” Id. at 1081 (citing Andrews v. City of Phila., 895 F.2d 1469, 1482 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting Vance v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 863 F.2d 1503, 1510 (11th Cir. 1989))). Johnson-Clayter’s Complaint does allege the required demonstrable criteria required by the Third Circuit. She claims she was intentionally discriminated against because of her race (African American) by an employee of Allstate, on a regular and unyielding basis, to a

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file an Answer to the Intervenor’s Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.
BY THE COURT: /S/ Petrese B. Tucker __________________________ Hon. Petrese B. Tucker
point where it caused her physical and psychological harm and could have done so to anyone else in her position. See Compl. ¶¶ 12-21, 28-36. Moreover, it is possible that the harassment did severely affect her and impede her ability to do her job. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the hostile work environment claim is denied.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

:

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC.,

:

:

Defendant.

:

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-3331

ORDER

AND NOW, on this 22nd day of August, 2006, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion

to Compel the Production of an Unredacted Copy of Plaintiff’s Investigator’s Call Log (Doc. 24),

and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 25), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s

Motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:
/S/ Petrese B. Tucker
_____________________________ Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J

 
 United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Philadelphia District Office
21 S. 5'· Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2619
Marisol Ramos, Trial Attorney Counsel for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

JOYCE JOHNSON-CLAYTER,

)

)

Intervenor

)

)

v.

)

)

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

Civil Action No. 04-3331 (PBT)
FUD FEB - 8 2007

CONSENT DECREE

A. This action was instituted by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC" or the "Commission") on or about September 1,2004, against Allstate Insurance Company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("Title VII"). The EEOC alleged that Defendant Allstate Insurance Company, ("Allstate" or "Defendant"), discriminated against Joyce Johnson-Clayter because of her race, Black, by terminating her employment as a Customer Service Representative for alleged performance problems, while similarly situated employees who had similar or identical problems

were not discharged. The EEOC alleged that Johnson Clayter suffered lost wages, emotional distress, and other damages. B. This Consent Decree is entered into by the EEOC and Defendant. This Consent Decree shall be final and binding between the EEOC and Defendant, its directors, officers, agents, employees, successors or assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it. C. The Commission and Defendant do hereby agree to the entry of this Consent Decree, which shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in the Complaint in Civil Action No. 04-CV-3331. This Consent Decree shall not constitute an adjudication of or finding on the merits of the case and shall not be construed as an admission of a violation of Title VII by Defendant, which has denied all liability.
CONSENT DECREE Upon consent of the parties to this action, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
NON-DISCRIMINATION AND NON-RETALIATION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. 2. Defendant agrees that it will not discriminate on the bases of race and/or retaliation. 3. Defendant shall not divulge, except as required by law, to any employer or potential employer of Joyce Johnson-Clayter, any of the facts or circumstances related to the charge of discrimination against Defendant, or any of the events relating to her participation in the litigation of this matter. 4. Allstate shall expunge from the personnel file of Joyce Johnson-Clayter any documents, pleadings, correspondence and related papers pertaining to the charge of discrimination filed by Ms. Johnson-Clayter with the Commission.
2

5. 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 that may be filed against Allstate in the future, except as it relates to the charge filed by Johnson-Clayter that formed the basis of the instant litigation.
MONETARY RELIEF 6. Defendant agrees to pay monetary relief in the total amount of$115,000 to Joyce JohnsonClayter, in full settlement of the claims against Defendant which were raised in the Commission's Complaint and the Complaint filed by Joyce Johnson-Clayter. The parties agree that this amount shall be designated as follows for tax reporting purposes: $10,000, less any applicable withholdings and deductions, for economic damages asserted by Joyce Johnson-Clayter and the EEOC, which will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") on a Form W-2 issued to Joyce Johnson-Clayter; $105,000 for non-economic damages asserted by Joyce Johnson-Clayter and the EEOC, including reimbursement of attorneys' fees, which will be reported to the IRS through a Form 1099 issued to Joyce Johnson-Clayter and Jeffrey R. Elliott, Esquire and Kozloff Stoudt, her attorneys. In order to receive the monetary relief, Ms. Johnson-Clayter must first execute a settlement agreement and release to be forwarded by Defendant to Johnson-Clayter's private attorney. The settlement check will be paid within ten (10) business days after expiration of the seven (7)-day revocation period outlined in the agreement entered into between Defendant and Ms. lohnson-Clayter.
POSTING OF NOTICE 8. Within ten (10) business days after entry of this Decree, or as soon as practicable, Allstate shall post a same-sized copy of the Notice attached as Exhibit A to this Decree on the human resources bulletin board located at its Reading, Pennsylvania facility. The notice shall
3

remain posted for eighteen (18) months from the date of entry of this Decree. Counsel for Allstate shall provide a copy of the Notice, and state the date and location of its posting, to the EEOC's Philadelphia District Office, attention, Marisol Ramos, Trial Attorney, within ten (l0) days of the posting. Defendant shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Should the posted copy become defaced, removed, marred, or otherwise illegible, Allstate agrees to as soon as practicable post a readable copy in the same manner as hereto specified.
NON-DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROCEDURES 9. Allstate shall ensure that its policy or policies against discrimination and retaliation and related complaint procedures meet the following minimum criteria:
(a) Include a complaint procedure designed to encourage employees to come forward with complaints regarding violations of its policy or policies against discrimination and retaliation, which shall meet the following minimum criteria: (i) provide effective mechanism(s) for reporting incidents of discrimination and retaliation; (ii) provide that the complaints of discrimination and/or retaliation can be made either in writing or verbally; (iii) identify employees to whom an employee can make a complaint; (iv) encourage prompt reporting by employees; and (vii) provide assurances that complainants shall not be subjected to retaliation;
(b) Provide for prompt investigation of complaints of discrimination and/or retaliation; (c) Provide for prompt communication to the complaining party of the results of the investigation and any remedial actions taken or proposed; and (d) Provide for discipline up to and including discharge of an employee or supervisor who violates Allstate's policy or policies against discrimination and retaliation.
4

10. Allstate shall distribute (or make available electronically) to all of its employees and newly-hired employees at its Reading, Pennsylvania facility, its policy or policies against discrimination and retaliation within ninety (90) days after entry of this Consent Decree.
TRAINING 11. Defendant shall provide training on the requirements of Title VII on the following terms:
a. Defendant agrees to provide training to all of its managers and supervisors at the Reading, Pennsylvania facility on an employee's rights under Title VII, and the employer's obligations under Title VII, with an emphasis on what constitutes unlawful and differential treatment of minority employees in the workplace, how to keep Defendant free of such forms of discrimination, and what constitutes unlawful retaliation;
b. Defendant shall provide training in accordance with Paragraph II(a) by no later than January 1,2008. 12. Allstate shall certify to the EEOC in writing within fifteen (15) business days after the training sessions have occurred that the training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 13. In the event that either party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance within ten (10) days of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged
5

non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance within ten (10) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 14. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 15. This Consent Decree shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in the Civil Action No. 04-CV-3331. 16. This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and shall continue to be in effect for a period of two (2) years. Any application by any party to modify or vacate this Consent Decree during such period shall be made by motion to the Court on no less than thirty (30) days notice to the other party. 17. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case for the duration of the Consent Decree in order to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree. 18. The Clerk of the District Court is hereby directed to send a file-stamped copy of this Consent Decree to counsel of record.
6

For Plaintiff EEOC:

Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel

Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel Washington, D. C.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

tt e}),' ,,"-,

l 'c,}1.C

"

J:/l')

y ,-" / ... J /'

?tL,-

J cque me H. McNair

Regional Attorney

.."\

\ !I)

1 ,//(:.£
L-lt·(.

L-.' '\

.

JuI dith A. O'Boyle

.......,Ij~,
l ' I u)l

v/'"--

SUP~~~~iY Trial A~~rey

(/11/11)) )

//' ,/
/ / tij/
Marisol Ramos Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Philadelphia District Office 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 191 06

IT IS ORDERED:

Daniel V. Jo s, E Ballard Spahr And s & Ingersoll 1735 Market Stre ,51 st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
ENTERED
FEB - 9 2007 CLERK OF COURT

BY THE COURT: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATE:

EXHIBIT A

NOTICE TO ALL ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY EMPLOYEES

This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the Federal Court in EEOC v. Allstate Insurance Company, Civil Action Number 04-3331 (E.D. Pa), resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate").
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 V.S.c. Section 2000e, et ~, as amended, ("Title VII"), prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment based upon race, color, sex, religion or national origin. Title VII further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves of their rights under Title VII by engaging in protected activities, such as opposing employment practices believed to be discriminatory, filing a charge of discrimination and/or testifying or participating in a Commission investigation. The EEOC is a federal agency that investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination. The EEOC has authority to bring lawsuits in Federal Court to enforce Title VII.
In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Allstate discriminated against an employee because of her race, Black. Allstate denies these allegations.
To resolve the case, Allstate has agreed to comply with its obligations under Title VII, and its non-discrimination policies, not to discriminate on the basis of race and not to retaliate against any person because she or he opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in any Title VII proceeding. Allstate also provided monetary relief to the employee.
If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may make a complaint under Allstate's policy or 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

Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to the: Regional Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 21 South 5th Street, Philadelphia, PA

19106.

By: :-/, ~! J£~/c/ I /lJL' Y2f~ ,
For: Equal. ~ployment Opportunity( 91'6)

By: For: Allstate Insurance Company

CommISSIOn

 
 United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?504500055995722-L_3...
A/R, CLOSED, STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04-cv-03331-PBT

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC. Assigned to: HONORABLE PETRESE B. TUCKER Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

Date Filed: 07/15/2004 Date Terminated: 04/13/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by DAWN M. EDGE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2687 Email: dawn.edge@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 02/18/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

IRIS SANTIAGO-FLORES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COM PHILA DISTRICT OFFICE 21 S. 5TH ST., STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2684 Email: iris.santiago-flores@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 01/05/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2687 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARISOL RAMOS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 SOUTH 5TH STREET

1 of 7

6/14/2007 2:53 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?504500055995722-L_3...

V.
Defendant
ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC. A SUBSIDIARY OF ALLSTATE INCORPORATION

SUITE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-2515 215-440-2619 Email: marisol.ramos@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARY M. TIERNAN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM PHILA DISTRICT OFFICE THE BOURSE BLDG 21 S. 5TH ST., STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2828 TERMINATED: 02/18/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY
JUDITH A. O'BOYLE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2687 Email: judith.oboyle@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by SHANNON D. FARMER BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP. 1735 MARKET STREET 51ST FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-7599 215-665-8500 Fax: 215-864-9061 Email: farmers@ballardspahr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARJORIE A. GEORGE BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP 1735 MARKET ST., 51ST FL PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-665-8500 Email: georgema@ballardspahr.com

2 of 7

6/14/2007 2:53 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?504500055995722-L_3...

Intervenor JOYCE JOHNSON-CLAYTER

TERMINATED: 05/12/2005
DANIEL V. JOHNS BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP 1735 MARKET ST., 51ST FL PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-864-8107 Fax: 215-864-8999 Email: johns@ballardspahr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JEFFREY R. ELLIOTT KOZLOFF STOUDT 2640 WESTVIEW DR P.O. BOX 6286 WYOMISSING, PA 19610 610-670-2552 Fax: 610-670-2591 Email: jelliott@kozloffstoudt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/15/2004 07/15/2004 07/15/2004 07/20/2004 07/20/2004 09/01/2004
09/27/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC. , filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(gtk, ) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
1 Summons Issued as to ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC.. Forwarded To: Counsel on 7/15/2004 (gtk, ) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (gtk, ) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
2 AMENDED COMPLAINT against ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC. , filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(ph, ) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
Summons Issued on Amended complaint as to ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC.. Forwarded To: counsel on 7/21/04 (ph, ) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
3 Affidavit of SERVICE of DUDLEY G. BROWN re: Service of Summons and Complaint and Amended upon KAREN E. FAUST on behalf of DEFENDANT ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC. by PERSONAL SERVICE on 8/23/2004, answer due 9/13/2004. (jpd) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
4 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Jury Demand.(mar, ) (Entered: 09/27/2004)

3 of 7

6/14/2007 2:53 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?504500055995722-L_3...

09/29/2004 10/01/2004 10/14/2004 10/14/2004 02/18/2005 03/21/2005 03/25/2005 04/18/2005 05/02/2005
05/11/2005 05/12/2005 05/12/2005 05/25/2005

5 MOTION TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P.24 FIELD BY JOYCE JOHNSON-CLAYTER,BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 EXHIBIT# 2 ORDER)(mar, ) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
6 Allstate Insurance Company's ANSWER to Amended Complaint by ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC. with Affirmative Defenses, Certificate of Service. (GEORGE, MARJORIE) Modified on 10/4/2004 (np). (Entered: 10/01/2004)
7 Memorandum of Law in Opposition re 5 MOTION to Intervene filed by ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC., Certificate of Service. (GEORGE, MARJORIE) Modified on 10/15/2004 (np). (Entered: 10/14/2004)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by DANIEL V. JOHNS on behalf of ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC.; Jury Demand with Certificate of Service. (JOHNS, DANIEL) Modified on 10/15/2004 (np). (Entered: 10/14/2004)
9 NOTICE by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION of SUBSTITUTE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE (SANTIAGO-FLORES, IRIS) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
10 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO INTERVENE FILED BY JOYCE JOHNSON-CLAYTER IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 3/15/05.3/21/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (stb, ) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
11 Intervenor COMPLAINT , filed by JOYCE JOHNSON-CLAYTER. Certificate of Service(stb, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/12/2005 (np, ). (Entered: 03/25/2005)
12 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenor Complaint by Allstate Insurance Company filed by ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC..Memorandum of Law, Certificate of Service.(GEORGE, MARJORIE) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
13 RESPONSE in Opposition re 12 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenor Complaint by Allstate Insurance Company filed by JOYCE JOHNSON-CLAYTER, Brief, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order# 2 Exhibit A)(ELLIOTT, JEFFREY) Modified on 5/4/2005 (fh, ). (Entered: 05/02/2005)
14 Motion for Leave to File Reply REPLY to Response to Motion re 12 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenor Complaint by Allstate Insurance Company filed by ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC.; Certificate of Service. (GEORGE, MARJORIE) Modified on 5/13/2005 (np). (Entered: 05/11/2005)
15 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by MARJORIE A. GEORGE on behalf of ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC. (GEORGE, MARJORIE) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by SHANNON D. FARMER on behalf of ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC. with Certificate of Service (FARMER, SHANNON) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
17 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS I

4 of 7

6/14/2007 2:53 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?504500055995722-L_3...

05/25/2005 12/14/2005
01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/05/2006 02/17/2006
03/03/2006 03/16/2006
03/27/2006

AND IV OF THE INTERVENOR COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 5/23/05. 5/25/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(stb, ) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
18 Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts I and IV of the Intervenor Complaint filed by ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC. (stb, ) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
19 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH HEREIN. DEFENDANT SHALL FILE AN ANSWER TO INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 12/12/05.12/15/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(le, ) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
20 Allstate Insurance Company's ANSWER to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC., Certificate of Service. (FARMER, SHANNON) Modified on 1/4/2006 (np). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
21 NOTICE of Hearing: Rule 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET FOR 2/10/2006 09:15 AM BEFORE HONORABLE PETRESE B. TUCKER. (adr) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
22 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by IRIS SANTIAGO-FLORES on behalf of EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (SANTIAGO-FLORES, IRIS) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
23 SCHEDULING ORDER: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IS SET FOR 7/26/2006 AT 2:00 PM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE HONORABLE PETRESE B. TUCKER. DISCOVERY DUE BY 7/14/2006. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE BY 8/18/2006. ALL BRIEFS FILED IN OPPOSITION SHALL BE FILED AND SERVED ON OR BEFORE FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2006 TRIAL POOL SET FOR 11/6/2006. SIGNED BY JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 2/10/06. 2/21/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(mac, ) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
24 MOTION to Compel Production of Unredacted Copy of Investigator's Call Log filed by ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, INC..Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to Motion to Compel)(FARMER, SHANNON) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
25 RESPONSE in Opposition re 24 MOTION to Compel Production of Unredacted Copy of Investigator's Call Log filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1- EEOC v. Allstate# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2EEOC v. Allstate) (RAMOS, MARISOL) Modified on 3/16/2006 (np). (Entered: 03/16/2006)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by JUDITH A. O'BOYLE on behalf of EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (O'BOYLE, JUDITH) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

5 of 7

6/14/2007 2:53 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?504500055995722-L_3...

07/21/2006 08/23/2006 09/08/2006
11/09/2006
02/08/2007 04/13/2007

27 ORDER THAT PARTIES JOINT REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE FOR 60 DAYS IS GRANTED AND DISCOVERY IS EXTENDED UNTIL 9/14/2006. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THELL OTHER DEADLINES SET FORTH IN THE SCHEDULING ORDER DATED 2/17/2006 ARE EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF 60 DAYS RESPECTIVELY. SIGNED BY JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 7/17/06. 7/21/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(le, ) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
28 ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF AN UNREDACTED COPY OF PLAINTIFF'S INVESTIGATOR'S CALL LOG IS DENIED. SIGNED BY JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 8/22/06.8/23/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (mac, ) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
29 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINE IS GRANTED. ALL DISCOVERY WILL BE COMPLETED BY MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006. ALL MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE FRIDAY, JANUARY 12, 2007 ALL BRIEFS FILED IN OPPOSITION SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE FRIDAY, JANUARY 26, 2007. THE CASE WILL BE PLACED ON THE COURT'S TRIAL LIST ON MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2007. SIGNED BY JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 09/06/06. 09/08/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(ac, ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
30 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER THAT ALL DISCOVERY IS DUE BY 12/13/2006. COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF SHALL SEND A LETTER TO THE COURT INDICATING THE STATUS OF THIS MATTER WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY. ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE COURT'S 9/6/06 SCHEDULING ORDER REMAIN IN FORCE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 11/7/06. 11/9/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(le, ) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
31 CONSENT DECREE THAT DEFENDANT AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASES OF RECE AND/OR RETALIATION, ETC.. SIGNED BY JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 2/7/07. 2/9/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(le, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/25/2007 (le, ). (Entered: 02/09/2007)
32 ORDER THAT THIS MATTER IS HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT COSTS PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 41.1(b). SIGNED BY JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 4/10/07. 4/16/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(le, ) (Entered: 04/16/2007)

6 of 7

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/14/2007 15:25:35

6/14/2007 2:53 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?504500055995722-L_3...

PACER Login:

hs0328

Description:

Docket Report

Billable Pages: 3

Client Code: eeoc

Search Criteria:
Cost:

2:04-cv-03331-PBT 0.24

7 of 7

6/14/2007 2:53 PM