Mary Jo O'Neill, AZ Bar No. 005294, mary.oneill@eeoc.gov 1 Sally C. Shanley, AZ Bar No. 012251, sally.shanley@eeoc.gov
P. David Lopez, DC Bar No. 426463, patrick.lopez@eeoc.gov 2 Valerie L. Meyer, CA Bar No. 228586, valerie.meyer@eeoc.gov
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 3 Phoenix District Office
3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 4 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2504
Telephone: (602) 640-5016 5 Fax: (602) 640-5009

6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
PHOENIX DIVISION
9

10

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

11

)

COMMISSION,

) Case No.:

12

)

Plaintiff,

) COMPLAINT

13

)

vs.

) (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

14

)

LUMPY LLC, doing business as CHILLY )

15

)

BOMBERS BAR & GRILL,

)

16

)

Defendant

)

17

18
NATURE OF THE ACTION
19
This is an action under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights
20
Act of 1964, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to restrain the unlawful payment
21
of wages to male employees at rates less than the rates paid to female employees, to
22
correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, female and pregnancy, and to
23
provide appropriate relief due to Christine Sedita as a result of such unlawful practices.
24
The Commission alleges that Lumpy LLC (hereinafter “Defendant Employer”) paid
25
manager Christine Sedita (hereinafter “Ms. Sedita”) at a wage rate less than the rates paid
26
to its male managers performing substantially equal work, and otherwise discriminated
27
against her because she was pregnant. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraph
28

-1-

1 9 below, Defendant Employer paid Ms. Sedita less than it paid her male predecessor and

2 a male assistant manager. In addition, because of Ms. Sedita’s pregnancy and her sex,

3 female, Defendant Employer refused to pay Ms. Sedita a salaried wage, rather than an

4 hourly wage.

5

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331,

7 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 16(c)

8 and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§

9 216(c) and 217, to enforce the requirements of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, codified as

10 Section 6(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), and pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3)

11 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and

12 (3) ("Title VII") and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §

13 1981a.

14

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within

15 the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix

16 Division.

17

PARTIES

18

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

19 "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

20 administration, interpretation and enforcement of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, and is

21 expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 16(c) and 17 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.

22 §§ 216(c) and 217, as amended by Section 1 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92

23 Stat. 3781, and Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705; and by Section 706(f)(1) and

24 (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)and (3).

25

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Lumpy LLC (the "Employer"), has

26 continuously been an Arizona limited liability corporation doing business in the State of

27 Arizona and the City of Phoenix, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

28

-2-

1

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an

2 employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections

3 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

4

6. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has acted directly or indirectly

5 as an employer in relation to employees and has continuously been an employer within

6 the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

7

7. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously employed

8 employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the

9 meaning of Sections 3(b), (i) and (j) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(b), (i) and (j) and

10 has continuously been an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods

11 for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(r) and (s) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§

12 203(r) and (s), in that said enterprise has continuously been an enterprise whose annual

13 gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000.

14

STATEMENT OF TITLE VII CLAIMS

15

8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Christine

16 Sedita filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant

17 Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

18

9. Since at least March 2004, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful

19 employment practices at its Phoenix, Arizona restaurant known as Chilly Bombers Bar

20 and Grill, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)

21 and (h). These unlawful employment practices include, but are not limited to:

22

a. Because of her sex, female, and her pregnancy, female, Defendant

23

Employer failed to offer Ms. Sedita a salaried position, and instead kept her

24

as an hourly employee.

25

b. Because of her sex, female, and her pregnancy, Defendant Employer

26

paid Ms. Sedita at a lesser rate than it had paid her male predecessor and a

27

male assistant manager.

28

-3-

1

10. The effect of the practice(s) complained of in paragraph 9 above has been

2 to deprive Christine Sedita of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely

3 affect her status as an employee, because of her sex, female, and pregnancy.

4

11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 9 above

5 were intentional.

6

12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 9 above

7 were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of

8 Christine Sedita.

9

STATEMENT OF EPA CLAIMS

10

13. Since at least March 2004, Defendant Employer has violated Sections

11 6(d)(1) and 15(a)(2) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(d)(1) and 215(a)(2), by paying

12 wages to Christine Sedita, a female managerial employee at its Chilly Bombers Bar &

13 Grill location, at rates less than the rates paid to male managerial employees in the same

14 establishment for substantially equal work on jobs the performance of which requires

15 equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working

16 conditions. Defendant Employer paid Ms. Sedita, a female, at a rate less than the rate

17 paid to her male predecessor and a male assistant night manager. Ms. Sedita and the two

18 male managers performed, under similar working conditions, substantially equal work

19 requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility.

20

14. As a result of the acts complained of above, Defendant Employer

21 unlawfully has withheld and is continuing to withhold the payment of wages due to

22 Christine Sedita.

23

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

24

Wherefore, the Commission requests that this Court:

25

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Employer, its

26 officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from

27 engaging in wage discrimination and in any other employment practice which

28 discriminates on the basis of sex and pregnancy.

-4-

1

B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Employer, its

2 officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from

3 discriminating within any of its establishments between employees on the basis of sex, by

4 paying wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates at which it pays wages

5 to employees of the opposite sex for substantially equal work on jobs the performance of

6 which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under

7 similar working conditions.

8

C. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and

9 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, including pregnant

10 women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment

11 practices.

12

D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Christine Sedita, by providing

13 appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, and other

14 affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.

15

E. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b), order Defendant Employer to make

16 whole Christine Sedita by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses

17 resulting from the unlawful practices described in paragraph 9 above, including but not

18 limited to job search expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.

19

F. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b), order Defendant Employer to make

20 whole Christine Sedita by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary

21 losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 9 above,

22 including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish,

23 and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.

24

G. Order Defendant Employer to pay Christine Sedita punitive damages for its

25 malicious and/or reckless conduct described in paragraph 9 above, in an amount to be

26 determined at trial.

27

H. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant Employer to pay appropriate back

28 wages in amounts to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages, and

-5-

1 prejudgment interest to Christine Sedita, whose wages are being unlawfully withheld as a

2 result of the acts complained of above.

3

I. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the

4 public interest.

5

J. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

6

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

7

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its

8 complaint.

9

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of March, 2006.

10

JAMES L. LEE

11

Deputy General Counsel

12

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

Associate General Counsel
13

14

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION

15

1801 L Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20507

16

17

s/ Mary Jo O’Neill

MARY JO O’NEILL

18

Regional Attorney

19

s/ Sally C. Shanley

SALLY C. SHANLEY

20

Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney

21

P. DAVID LOPEZ

Trial Attorney
22

s/ Valerie L. Meyer

23

VALERIE L. MEYER

24

Trial Attorney

25

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

26

Phoenix District Office

3300 N. Central Ave.

27

Suite 690

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

28

Attorneys for Plaintiff

-6-

 
 1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Equal Employment Opportunity)

Commission,

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

vs.

)

12

)

)

13 Lumpy LLC, d/b/a Chilly Bombers, )

)

14

Defendant.

)

)

15

)

No. CV-06-0830-PHX-SRB ORDER

16 This matter arises out of an alleged disparity in compensation paid to former Lumpy
17 LLC employee Christine Sedita as compared to two other male employees, Jeff Majerle and
18 Patrick Zacek. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), claims
19 that this disparity resulted from discrimination on the basis of Ms. Sedita’s pregnancy and
20 her gender and, therefore, was in violation of both the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII
21 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pending before the Court is Defendant Lumpy LLC’s
22 Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44).
23 I. BACKGROUND
24 In 1992, Majerle’s, a restaurant and bar, opened in downtown Phoenix, Arizona. That
25 same year, Majerle’s hired Jeff Majerle to work the door. Subsequently, Mr. Majerle worked
26 his way up to a management-level position and when Majerle’s opened a location in
27 Glendale, Arizona in 1999, Mr. Majerle became the general manager of the new location.
28

1 In 2004 the Glendale Majerle’s location severed its connection to the downtown Majerle’s 2 and is now know as Chilly Bombers.

3

Defendant hired Ms. Sedita in 1999 as a hostess. After approximately three months

4 of work, Ms. Sedita became a server and, shortly thereafter, a waitress. In February 2002

5 Ms. Sedita began working as a bartender and later that year assumed some management 6 duties. Generally, she worked five shifts a week which consisted of four bartending shifts 7 and a single shift, on Friday night, as the manager. Also, she assumed some management 8 duties while bartending depending on whether Mr. Majerle was present, or if he needed 9 assistance with certain tasks. At all times prior to April 2004, Ms. Sedita was subordinate

10 to Mr. Majerle, who retained the authority to direct the operations of the business, including

11 supervising Ms. Sedita. Mr. Majerle was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the

12 business and did not generally consult with John Cook, the majority owner of Defendant,

13 prior to making important business decisions.

14

As the principal manager, Mr. Majerle was a salaried employee and he received

15 $1,540 every two weeks along with health insurance benefits. Mr. Majerle was also a partial

16 owner of the business, holding approximately a seven percent interest. By contrast, Ms.

17 Sedita was an hourly employee, however, she also received health benefits. Only

18 management-level employees received health benefits from Defendant. Ms. Sedita was paid

19 a nominal wage for her bartending time because most of her compensation came in the form

20 of tips. On Friday evenings when Ms. Sedita was managing, she received increased

21 compensation to offset the lack of tip income.

22

In January 2004, Ms. Sedita informed Mr. Majerle that she was pregnant and that she

23 no longer wished to bartend. To accommodate Ms. Sedita, Mr. Majerle permitted Ms. Sedita

24 to transition into a full time management position and he placed her on a wage of ten dollars

25 per hour to defray lost tips. In early April 2004, Mr. Majerle resigned without notice and Ms. 26 Sedita, as the only remaining manager, immediately assumed many of his responsibilities. 27 Within days of Mr. Majerle’s departure, Ms. Sedita approached Mr. Cook and requested an 28

- 2 -

1 increase in pay to reflect her additional job responsibilities. Mr. Cook offered to raise Ms. 2 Sedita’s hourly wage to twelve dollars per hour, and she accepted the offer.

3

On May 17, 2004, Defendant hired Patrick Zacek as the night time manager. Mr.

4 Zacek’s compensation was set at a rate of $1,000 every two weeks. As a salaried employee,

5 Mr. Zacek did not have to punch a time clock and there are no records to show the hours that 6 he actually worked. In the period following Mr. Zacek’s hiring, Ms. Sedita managed the 7 establishment during the daytime hours while Mr. Zacek managed the evening hours. Mr. 8 Zacek also performed an entertainment program called “Name That Tune” on Tuesday and 9 Saturday evenings. Mr. Zacek was compensated separately for this show at a rate of $300

10 per show. On these evenings, Mr. Cook would manage during the show and then either hand

11 management duties back to Mr. Zacek following the show or continue to manage until

12 closing time. As a salaried employee, Mr. Zacek received paid time off for sick days and

13 vacation leave. During the time that Ms. Sedita and Mr. Zacek were concurrently employed

14 by Defendant, Mr. Zacek took at least three vacation days.

15

Ms. Sedita voluntarily terminated her employment with Defendant in September 2004.

16 From these facts, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against Ms. Sedita by under-

17 compensating her due to her gender and her pregnancy and, therefore, violated both the

18 Equal Pay Act of 1963 (“EPA”), codified as Section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 19 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). 20 Defendant denies these allegations and responds that any disparities in pay were the result 21 of material differences in the job duties of Ms. Sedita, Mr. Majerle, and Mr. Zacek. Thus, 22 Defendant contends that the pay rates were justified and were the result of legitimate

23 business decision making, and were made without regard to Ms. Sedita’s pregnancy or her

24 gender. Finally, Defendant contends that the compensation and benefits paid to Ms. Sedita

25 were in an amount equal to or greater than that paid to Mr. Zacek, and, thus, Ms. Sedita 26 cannot claim that she has been unfairly compensated. 27 28

- 3 -

1 II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

2

A. Request to Strike or, Alternatively, Not Consider Defense Exhibit 7

3

Plaintiff argues that Defense Exhibit 7 should be stricken, or, in the alternative, not

4 be given consideration because it lacks foundation and contains inadmissible hearsay. (Pl.

5 EEOC’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Resp.”) at 11 n.2.) “To be considered by

6 the court, ‘documents must be authenticated by and attached to an affidavit that meets the

7 requirements of [Rule] 56(e) and the affiant must be a person through whom the exhibits

8 could be admitted into evidence.’” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc.,

9 896 F.2d 1542, 1550-51 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Canada v. Blain's Helicopters, Inc., 831

10 F.2d 920, 925 (9th Cir.1987)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693

11 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that to comply with the foundation and authentication

12 requirements of Rule 56, documents “are required to be authenticated by affidavits or

13 declarations of persons with personal knowledge through whom they could be introduced at

14 trial”). Accordingly, “[a] document which lacks a proper foundation to authenticate it cannot

15 be used to support a motion for summary judgment.” Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1551.

16

Exhibit 7 consists of two brief documents purporting to be “Consolidated System

17 Time Period Summar[ies]” which contain sales data from time periods relevant to this

18 litigation. Assuming that the contents of these documents would otherwise be admissible,

19 Defendant was required to submit an affidavit or declaration by some individual possessing

20 personal knowledge of the notes, through whom the document could be properly introduced

21 into evidence. Defendant did not submit the required affidavit or declaration, and therefore

22 has failed to lay the foundation necessary to authenticate the document in the manner

23 required. Exhibit 7 has not been authenticated and, accordingly, will not be considered by

24 the Court. Additionally, all statements made in reference to, or reliance upon, Exhibit 7 will

25 not influence the Court’s decision.1

26

27

1The Court will not address Plaintiff's argument that Exhibit 7 is inadmissible hearsay

28 because the document has been stricken for lack of foundation.

- 4 -

1

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

2

Summary judgment is appropriately granted when there are no genuine issues of

3 material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.

4 P. 56(c). The initial burden is on the moving party to show an absence of genuine issues of

5 material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the moving party meets 6 its initial burden, the non-moving party may not merely rest on its pleadings; it must produce 7 some significant probative evidence tending to contradict the moving party’s allegations, 8 thereby creating a material question of fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 9 256-57 (1986) (holding that the plaintiff must present affirmative evidence in order to defeat

10 a properly supported motion for summary judgment). In deciding a motion for summary

11 judgment, the Court views the evidence of the non-movant in the light most favorable to that

12 party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Id. at 255.

13

1. The Equal Pay Act

14

The EPA states that:

15

No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this

section shall discriminate . . . between employees on the basis of

16

sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a

rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of

17

the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs

the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and

18

responsibility, and which are performed under similar working

conditions . . . .

19

29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). “In an Equal Pay Act case, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing

20

a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that employees of the opposite sex were paid

21

different wages for equal work.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1073-74 (9th

22

Cir. 1999). A plaintiff fulfills her burden of establishing that the two positions required

23

“equal work” by demonstrating facts that support a conclusion that the jobs are “substantially

24

equal.” Id.; Hein v. Or. Coll. of Educ., 718 F.2d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 1983). To satisfy the

25

“substantially equal” analysis, “the plaintiff need not demonstrate that the jobs in question

26

are identical.” Id. at 1074.

27

28

- 5 -

1

In EPA cases, the Ninth Circuit uses a two-step “substantially equal” analysis. Id.

2 First, the court inquires whether the two positions being compared “have a ‘common core’

3 of tasks, i.e. whether a significant portion of the two jobs is identical.” Id. If the “plaintiff

4 establishes such a ‘common core of tasks,’ the court must then determine whether any

5 additional tasks, incumbent on one job but not the other, make the two jobs ‘substantially

6 different.’” Id.

7

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Sedita was paid less than two male employees,

8 Mr. Majerle and Mr. Zacek, for what Plaintiff believes was “substantially equal” work. The

9 Court will make each comparison separately.

10

a. Jeff Majerle

11

In the months leading up to Mr. Majerle’s departure, there is no question that his job

12 responsibilities extended well beyond Ms. Sedita’s duties. Thus, Plaintiff does not claim that 13 Ms. Sedita was paid less for equal work while Mr. Majerle was working for Defendant. 14 Rather, Plaintiff limits its argument to the time period directly following Mr. Majerle’s 15 resignation, when Ms. Sedita assumed additional job duties to compensate for the unexpected

16 resignation of her former boss. Plaintiff believes that Ms. Sedita’s job duties in April 2004

17 were “substantially equal” to Mr. Majerle’s duties prior to his departure. This position,

18 however, is unsupported by the facts and the Court concludes that viewing the evidence in

19 the light most favorable to Plaintiff, no material issue of fact exists regarding the substantial

20 equality of these two positions.

21

Ms. Sedita and Mr. Majerle, as manager and general manager respectively, had jobs

22 that required them to perform a common core of tasks. They were both responsible for

23 managing the day-to-day operations of the restaurant, employee scheduling, customer

24 service, liquor ordering, vendor interaction, payroll issues, and other operational

25 responsibilities. Thus, when comparing Ms. Sedita’s duties in April 2004 to Mr. Majerle’s 26 duties as the general manager, Plaintiff has established that the two positions required a 27 common core of tasks. Having established a common core of tasks, Plaintiff has the burden 28

- 6 -

1 of demonstrating that no additional duties, specific to one job and not the other, make these 2 two positions substantially different.

3

Prior to Mr. Majerle’s departure, he was responsible for the overall functioning of the

4 business. In this capacity, Mr. Majerle was responsible for all staffing decisions, the overall

5 economic success and financial management of the establishment, and all operational aspects 6 of the business. According to Mr. Cook, when Mr. Majerle hired, fired, or disciplined an 7 employee he would not consult with Mr. Cook. (Def.’s Separate Statement of Facts in Supp. 8 of its Mot. for Summ. J. (“DSOF”), Ex. 5, Dep. of John Cook (“Cook Dep.”) at 22:10-21.) 9 Mr. Cook testified that Mr. Majerle “was running the whole restaurant” and that he was

10 responsible for “making sure that financially [Defendant was] . . . keeping afloat.” (DSOF,

11 Cook Dep. at 79:5-15.)

12

Plaintiff’s argument is premised on its belief that once Mr. Majerle left, someone must

13 have been filling in for those duties and logically the only person who could have done that

14 was Ms. Sedita. While this is one logical conclusion, it is not supported by the evidence, and

15 it is not the only reasonable one. The evidence shows that in the power vacuum that ensued,

16 Mr. Cook stepped in and took a more hands-on approach to the business. Critical evidence

17 of this is the fact that Mr. Cook hired Mr. Zacek on April 17, 2004, approximately two weeks

18 after Mr. Majerle quit. If Ms. Sedita had assumed the role of general manager, then likely 19 she would have been involved in that hiring decision; she was not. Furthermore, the 20 evidence shows that Mr. Cook took an active roll in the management of the business 21 following Mr. Majerle’s departure. Uncontroverted evidence shows that Mr. Cook managed 22 the restaurant at a minimum for two nights a week while Mr. Zacek performed his “name that

23 tune” show. This lies in sharp contrast to his position prior to April 2004, in which he

24 performed few duties related to the operation of the business. Additionally, Ms. Sedita has

25 not alleged that she had the authority to hire or fire employees. Plaintiff has only alleged that 26 Ms. Sedita “would provide input on personnel decisions like hiring and firing” while Mr. 27 Majerle was still employed by Defendant. (Pl.’s Statement of Facts in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. 28 for Summ. J. (“PSOF”) ¶ 28.) Providing input for personnel decisions and actually making

- 7 -

1 those decisions are disparate levels of responsibility. Moreover, Plaintiff has not come forth 2 with any evidence to show that she had any authority to make personnel decisions in the time

3 period relevant to this EPA claim: after Mr. Majerle’s departure.

4

The Court concludes that Mr. Majerle’s overall responsibility for Defendant’s

5 business distinguishes his position from the job duties performed by Ms. Sedita, making

6 those two positions “substantially different.” Thus, Plaintiff has failed to generate a material

7 issue of fact regarding the substantial equality of Ms. Sedita’s work beginning in April 2004

8 as compared to Mr. Majerle’s work prior to his resignation.

9

b. Patrick Zacek

10

Mr. Zacek was hired by Defendant to manage the evening shift while Ms. Sedita

11 retained primary responsibility for managing the daytime shift. First, the Court examines

12 whether these two positions involved a common core of tasks. Defendant has not taken the 13 position that these two jobs require a dissimilar core of tasks, thus, the Court moves to the 14 second step of the analysis. Defendant’s argument seeks to demonstrate that Mr. Zacek’s 15 position requires additional effort and, therefore, does not qualify as “equal work.” As

16 described by Defendant, Mr. Zacek’s position required additional effort in terms of food,

17 customers, alcohol, and money, and also dictated that Mr. Zacek work longer hours. Plaintiff

18 responds that Ms. Sedita had substantial job duties during the day, regardless of whether

19 there was an increased amount of business in the evenings.

20

To support its claim that Mr. Zacek was responsible for substantially greater sales of

21 alcohol and food, and that he was responsible for handling larger sums of money, Defendant

22 relies on Exhibit 7 to its Statement of Facts. The Court, however, has determined that

23 Exhibit 7 may not be considered, thus, Defendant must use other evidence to support this

24 contention. Defendant has offered additional testimony to support its position that the

25 volume of business was higher in the evening, but the Court cannot make a determination, 26 based upon the evidence before it, concerning the extent of this increase in business. As 27 additional evidence of increased effort, Defendant contends that Mr. Zacek worked longer 28 hours and therefore merited higher pay. This position has been challenged by Plaintiff

- 8 -

1 through the introduction of testimony concerning Mr. Zacek’s participation in “Name That

2 Tune,” his vacation time and other paid time off, and the absence of any records indicating

3 the time that he actually worked. Thus, Plaintiff has offered evidence that tends to controvert

4 Defendant’s claim that Mr. Zacek consistently worked hours beyond those worked by Ms.

5 Sedita. Based upon the evidence before it, the Court cannot accurately determine the hours

6 worked by Mr. Zacek, and Plaintiff has successfully created a fact question as to whether he

7 really did work in excess of fifty hours per week as claimed by Defendant.

8

Plaintiff disputes whether the evening manager actually expended additional effort,

9 and further contends that Ms. Sedita had substantial duties during the day that

10 counterbalanced any increase in business experienced in the evenings. To support this,

11 Plaintiff has offered the testimony of Kathy Ruiz, Defendant’s former Business Manager,

12 who has stated that Ms. Sedita’s “duties included opening the restaurant, banking, payroll,

13 liquor ordering, liquor payments, training, dealing with vendors, and answering several

14 business phone calls. These are very critical and significant responsibilities in the restaurant

15 business that Patrick Zacek just did not have.” (PSOF, Ex. 7, Decl. of Kathy Ruiz ¶ 9.)

16

Resolving all of the factual disputes in favor of Plaintiff, the Court concludes that

17 there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ms. Sedita and Mr. Zacek

18 performed jobs that were substantially equal. Even assuming that the evening manager was

19 responsible for additional business volume, the Court cannot say that this increased business

20 was so substantial that it completely outweighs the additional tasks that Plaintiff contends

21 were part of Ms. Sedita’s daytime responsibilities. The balancing of the daytime managerial

22 duties versus the evening managerial duties to determine whether they constitute “equal

23 work” is properly reserved for a jury where, as is the case here, Plaintiff has come forward

24 with evidence that would permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude that those positions

25 were “substantially equal.”2

26

27

2Defendant offers a second argument directed at Plaintiff’s EPA claim as it pertains

28 to Ms. Sedita and Mr. Zacek. Although Ms. Sedita was paid a lower wage than Mr. Zacek,

- 9 -

1

2. Title VII

2

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that "[it] shall be an unlawful

3 employment practice for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individual with respect

4 to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such

5 individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). “The 6 term[] ‘because of sex’. . . include[s] . . . on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related 7 medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical 8 conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes.” Id. at § 2000e(k). 9 Generally, where a plaintiff alleges Title VII discrimination the court applies the McDonnell

10 Douglas burden shifting analysis to determine whether the plaintiff has made out a prima

11 facie case of discrimination. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121

12 (1985). However, “the McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents 13 direct evidence of discrimination.” Id. (holding that “[t]he shifting burdens of proof set forth 14 in McDonnell Douglas are designed to assure that the ‘plaintiff [has] his day in court despite 15

16

17 Defendant argues that Ms. Sedita actually receive greater overall compensation, in the form

18 of wages and benefits, than those paid to Mr. Zacek. While this argument may be legally

supported, it is significantly undermined by the facts offered by Plaintiff. Defendant argues 19 that it paid $360 a month in heath benefits on Ms. Sedita’s behalf and that no such benefits

20 were paid for Mr. Zacek. While this may be true, Plaintiff has offered testimony in support of its position that all management level employees were offered health benefits, and that Mr.

21 Zacek declined these benefits because he was insured through a separate source.

22

Notwithstanding the issue of health benefits, Plaintiff has introduced other facts that, if believed, would establish additional compensation for Mr. Zacek. First, Mr. Zacek was

23 a salaried employee and, as such, he received paid time off and paid sick leave. Plaintiff

alleges that Mr. Zacek took advantage of this leave on more than one occasion. Next, 24 Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Zacek received tip income in addition to his salary. Finally, it is

25 impossible for this court to quantify Mr. Zacek’s hourly rate to make an effective comparison with the hourly rate earned by Ms. Sedita because there are no records of Mr. Zacek’s hours,
26 and the hours suggested by Defendant have been controverted by Plaintiff. On summary

27 judgment, the Court must take the non-moving party’s facts as true, and, therefore, the issue of whether Ms. Sedita was actually compensated at a rate lower than Mr. Zacek is properly

28 determined at trial.

- 10 -

1 the unavailability of direct evidence.’” (quoting Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003, 1014

2 (1st Cir. 1979))).

3

In this case, Plaintiff has offered direct evidence of discrimination in the form of

4 testimony that Mr. Cook told Ms. Sedita that she could renegotiate her salary after her

5 pregnancy. (See PSOF ¶¶ 59-62.) If believed, this demonstrates that Defendant made

6 assumptions about a pregnant employee’s ability to perform her job based upon stereotypical

7 judgments about pregnancy. Such considerations cannot form a legitimate basis for an

8 employment decision. The Court must accept Plaintiff’s evidence as true on summary

9 judgment, and therefore regards as fact that Mr. Cook made the statements alleged.

10

Defendant offers little argument concerning Plaintiff’s Title VII claims. In

11 Defendant’s Motion it argues that Plaintiff’s Title VII claim must fail because she cannot

12 establish that she suffered any adverse employment action. No legal argument is offered by

13 Defendant to support the position that discriminatory under-compensation is not an adverse

14 employment action. Plaintiff has alleged that Ms. Sedita was compensated at a rate below

15 that afforded to her male counterparts. This alleged discriminatory compensation constitutes

16 an adverse employment action. Defendant’s Reply limits its Title VII analysis to three

17 sentences and fails to respond to the argument offered in Plaintiff’s Response. Defendant’s

18 single position is without merit and summary judgment is denied on Plaintiff’s Title VII

19 claims.

20

IT IS ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion for

21 Summary Judgment (Doc. 44). Summary judgment is granted on Plaintiff’s Equal Pay Act

22 claim as it relates to Mr. Majerle only. Summary judgment is denied on Plaintiff’s Equal Pay

23 Act claim as it relates to Patrick Zacek and is denied on Plaintiff’s Title VII claim.

24

DATED this 1st day of February, 2008.

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00830-SRB Document 121 Filed 05/07/08 Page 1 of 5

1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Equal Employment Opportunity)

Commission,

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

vs.

)

12

)

)

13 Lumpy LLC, d/b/a Chilly Bombers, )

)

14

Defendant.

)

)

15

)

No. CV06-0830-PHX-SRB ORDER

16

17

This case was tried to a jury over four days in March 2008. The trial issues were

18 whether Defendant had discriminated against charging party Christine Sedita on the basis of

19 her sex and/or pregnancy in violation of Title VII and whether Defendant had violated the

20 Equal Pay Act by paying Ms. Sedita differently and/or less than male managers performing

21 substantially similar work. On March 19, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of

22 Plaintiff and against Defendant on the Title VII sex and/or pregnancy discrimination claim

23 but awarded the charging party no damages for either lost wages or earnings through the date

24 she terminated her employment or for emotional pain. The jury also found in favor of

25 Plaintiff and against Defendant on the Equal Pay Act claim and determined that the damages

26 for the difference in pay for Christine Sedita was only $200.00. The jury did not award

27 punitive damages on the Title VII claim and found that the Defendant’s violation of the

28

Case 2:06-cv-00830-SRB Document 121 Filed 05/07/08 Page 2 of 5

1 Equal Pay Act was not willful. After the return of the verdicts, the Court directed that

2 Plaintiff submit a proposed form of judgment.

3

On April 3, 2008, Plaintiff lodged a proposed final judgment and filed a motion

4 regarding injunctive relief and back pay. In that judgment, Plaintiff requested that the Court

5 permanently enjoin Defendant from discriminating against any individuals on the basis of

6 sex and/or pregnancy in violation of Title VII or under the Equal Pay Act and also

7 permanently enjoin the Defendant from retaliation against any individual who made a charge,

8 testified or assisted in an investigation of a claim of discrimination under Title VII or the

9 Equal Pay Act. The proposed final judgment also asks that the Court impose affirmative

10 duties on the Defendant for a three-year period as follows:

11

1. Retain and pay a consultant to provide training on prohibited workplace

12 discrimination and to develop written policies concerning work place discrimination and

13 retaliation for the Defendant;

14

2. Complete the preparation of these policies within 90 days of the entry of final

15 judgment and distribute them to current employees as well as new employees when hired.

16 The policies are also to be submitted to the Regional Attorney at the Phoenix District Office

17 of Plaintiff;

18

3. The consultant retained to perform the training must be acceptable to the Plaintiff.

19 The Plaintiff must be permitted to designate representatives to attend the training sessions.

20 All Defendant’s employees must be trained. The training must included no less than two

21 hours of instructions and must be repeated periodically for new employees;

22

4. Post a notice to all employees regarding this lawsuit. A proposed form of notice

23 is attached to the lodged final judgment;

24

5. Hire an outside consultant to investigate any claims of sex, pregnancy or pay

25 discrimination. Defendant would be prohibited from investigating any claims itself;

26

6. Certain reporting requirements to the Plaintiff are imposed on Defendant;

27

28

- 2 -

Case 2:06-cv-00830-SRB Document 121 Filed 05/07/08 Page 3 of 5

1

7. With respect to the charging party, a requirement that Defendant provide her with

2 a letter of recommendation in a form approved by Plaintiff. Plaintiff also requests an order

3 that Defendant pay Christine Sedita $460.00 in back pay.

4

Defendant has objected to Plaintiff’s proposed judgment. Plaintiff has filed a reply

5 in support of its proposed judgment.

6

For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s objections will be sustained, and the final

7 judgment in this case will direct that $200.00 plus prejudgment interest from August 14,

8 2004, be paid by the Defendant to the charging party.

9

The Plaintiff’s first claim was for sex and/or pregnancy discrimination. The evidence

10 at trial did not show any sex discrimination against the charging party or any other female

11 employees of the Defendant except against the charging party when she became pregnant.

12 Moreover, there was no evidence that there has been any repetition of pregnancy

13 discrimination in the four years since the charging party filed her charge of discrimination.

14 There is no risk that any discrimination against the charging party will recur or that there will

15 be any retaliation because the charging party voluntarily chose not to return to Defendant’s

16 employ after she gave birth to her son.

17

Because the discrimination appears to be isolated to this charging party and her

18 pregnancy and there is no possibility of future discrimination against her, equitable factors

19 do not weigh in favor of the extensive and costly injunctive relief proposed in the lodged

20 final judgment. Other equitable factors also weigh against the relief sought by the Plaintiff.

21 Defendant is a small employer of a single restaurant which is not particularly profitable.

22 There is no evidence to suggest that there were any other Title VII violations related to other

23 female employees or any other employees in a protected class. There is no evidence of any

24 other Equal Pay Act violations. The single Title VII and Equal Pay Act violation does not

25 justify the imposition of the proposed affirmative obligations and expense on the Defendant.

26

With regard to the proposed award of $460.00 in back pay to the charging party, the

27 Court notes that there was conflicting evidence at trial concerning the reasons why the

28 charging party earned less than the similarly situated male manager. While she was refused

- 3 -

Case 2:06-cv-00830-SRB Document 121 Filed 05/07/08 Page 4 of 5

1 a salary and paid hourly she was sometimes paid more than the similarly situated male

2 manager because of the opportunity that she had for overtime pay. There was also conflicting

3 evidence as to whether during periods when she was prohibited from working overtime she

4 earned less because of her voluntary choice to work less than 40 hours per week. The actual

5 pay differential between Ms. Sedita’s hourly wage of $12.00 in a 40 hour work week and the

6 male manger’s $500.00 per week pay was $20.00 per week. The Court cannot say that the

7 charging party’s testimony that her back pay or pay differential of $460.00 was undisputed.

8 Rather, the Court accepts the advisory verdict of the jury and finds that the only damages for

9 back pay sustained by the charging party are $200.00.

10

Finally, with respect to the proposed form of judgment’s requirement that the

11 Defendant provide the charging party with a letter of recommendation, there was absolutely

12 no evidence that the charging party ever requested and/or was denied a letter of

13 recommendation, that any prospective employer of the charging party ever contacted the

14 Defendant for a recommendation, or that the Defendant would not give a positive

15 recommendation upon request. The Court will not require the letter of recommendation as

16 proposed in the judgment but instead will direct that the Defendant refrain from giving any

17 negative information if ever contacted by a future prospective employer of the charging

18 party. From the evidence at trial, the Court has no reason to suspect that any inquiry

19 concerning the charging party’s prior work performance would not be positive based on the

20 testimony of Defendant’s owner and other employees and former employees at trial.

21

IT IS ORDERED sustaining Defendant’s Objections to the Proposed Form of Final

22 Judgment and denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief and Back Pay. (Doc. 116).

23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of

24 Plaintiff and against Defendant on the claim of pregnancy discrimination and on the claim

25 for violation of the Equal Pay Act.

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing that the judgment require Defendant to pay

27 the charging party, Christine Sedita, damages in the amount of $200.00, plus interest

28 accruing from August 14, 2004 until paid in full.

- 4 -

Case 2:06-cv-00830-SRB Document 121 Filed 05/07/08 Page 5 of 5

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if inquiry is made in the future that the Defendant

2 refrain from providing any negative information with respect to the charging party’s job

3 performance while employed by Defendant.

4

5

DATED this 6th day of May, 2008.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

 
 Case: 2:06-cv-830 As of: 06/03/2017 10:13 AM MST 1 of 10
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−00830−SRB

CLOSED,STD

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lumpy, LLC Assigned to: Judge Susan R Bolton Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/22/2006 Date Terminated: 05/07/2008 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Mary Joleen O'Neill Equal Employment Opportunity Commission − Phoenix, AZ 3300 N Central Ave., Ste. 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5044 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

P David Lopez EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5016 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: patrick.lopez@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally Clifford Shanley Equal Employment Opportunity Commission − Phoenix, AZ 3300 N Central Ave., Ste. 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5007 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: sally.shanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Leigh Meyer US EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−2504 602−640−4988 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: valerie.meyer@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/24/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle Tamara Deutsch EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602−640−4773

Case: 2:06-cv-830 As of: 06/03/2017 10:13 AM MST 2 of 10
Email: michelle.deutsch@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 02/20/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tin−Tin Diana Chen EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−2504 602−640−5033 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: Diana.chen@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Lumpy LLC doing business as Chilly Bombers Bar & Grill

represented by David Joseph Catanese Catanese Law Firm PC 2701 E Camelback Rd., Ste, 160 Phoenix, AZ 85016−7104 602−288−8270 Fax: 602−288−8271 Email: david@djctriallaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/22/2006 03/22/2006 03/23/2006 03/24/2006
05/22/2006 06/27/2006
06/30/2006 07/05/2006 07/07/2006 07/14/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Meyer, Valerie) Modified on 3/22/2006 (ESH, ). (Entered: 03/22/2006)
2 Summons Issued as to Lumpy, LLC. (ESH, ) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
3 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
4 ORDER granting 3 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Valerie Leigh Meyer terminated; Mary Jo O'Neill, Sally C. Shanley and P. David Lopez remain as counsel for the Equal Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/24/2006. (LAD) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lumpy, LLC served on 5/17/2006, answer due 6/6/2006. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
6 It is ordered that counsel for the plaintiff file a status report within 5 days of the date of this order concerning this case. It is further ordered that this matter will be dismissed within 5 days of the date of this order if counsel fails to file a status report. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/27/06. (SRB) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
7 STATUS REPORT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
8 MOTION for Extension of Time File Answer by Lumpy, LLC. (Catanese, David) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
9 ORDER granting 8 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to file its Answer. Answer due: 7/15/06 Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/7/06. (SRB) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
10 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Lumpy, LLC.(Catanese, David) (Entered: 07/14/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-830 As of: 06/03/2017 10:13 AM MST 3 of 10

07/19/2006 08/22/2006 08/28/2006
08/29/2006
09/13/2006 11/13/2006 11/13/2006 12/19/2006 12/27/2006 01/19/2007
02/09/2007 03/05/2007
03/06/2007 03/08/2007

11 ORDER setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for 8/28/06 at 10:15 a.m. before Judge Susan R Bolton. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/19/06. (SRB) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
12 REPORT re: Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Lumpy, LLC. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Scheduling Conference held on 8/28/2006. Deadlines discussed and entered. Formal Order to follow. A copy of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order is provided to counsel this date. At the request of counsel, Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey having been randomly drawn, IT IS ORDERED referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Aspey for the purpose of conducting a civil settlment conference. (Court Reporter Kim Moll) (MAW) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
14 SCHEDULING ORDER issued. Discovery due by 5/4/2007. Dispositive motions due by 8/17/2007. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 1/21/2008. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/28/2008 10:00 AM before Judge Susan R Bolton. Jury Trial set for 2/12/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Susan R Bolton. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 8/28/06. (SRB) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
15 Notice re Service of Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure and First Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lopez, P) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
16 Notice re Service of First Discovery Requests to Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lopez, P) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
17 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 1/11/2007 10:00 AM in Suite 200, 123 North San Francisco Street, Flagstaff, AZ 86001 before Magistrate Judge Mark E Aspey. Signed by Judge Mark E Aspey on 11/13/06. (MEA,ps) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
18 Due to scheduling conflicts; IT IS ORDERED the Settlement Conference, presently set for 1/11/07 at 10:00 AM is VACATED and RESET for 1/18/07 at 10:00 AM. (MEA,ps)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle Tamara Deutsch on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
20 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Mark E Aspey : The parties and counsel appeared at Settlement Conference held on 1/18/2007. Settlement was not reached in this matter and it is referred back to Judge Bolton for further proceedings. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MEA,ps) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
21 Minute Order: Discovery Dispute Hearing set on 3/5/07 at 10:00 AM before Judge Susan R Bolton. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
23 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 3/5/07 at the request of plaintiff's counsel. Discussion held. Due to defense counsel's response to plaintiff's counsel, the Court notes the defendant is no longer maintaining that any pay disparity was as a result of additional benefits plaintiff received in the way of health care. IT IS ORDERED directing defense counsel to produce by 3/31/07 all outstanding sales receipts. If they are not produced, defendant will be precluded from raising the disparity in sales as an issue in the case. (Court Reporter Kim Moll)(MAW) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
22 STIPULATION on Extension of Time to Disclose Witnesses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
24 ORDER re 22 Granting parties STIPULATION on Extension of Time to Disclose Witnesses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiff an extension of time through and including 4/16/07, in which to disclose the identity of all persons who may be used at trial to present evidence. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/8/07. (LCF) (Entered: 03/08/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-830 As of: 06/03/2017 10:13 AM MST 4 of 10

04/02/2007 04/06/2007 04/10/2007 04/11/2007 04/11/2007 04/18/2007 04/19/2007 04/19/2007 04/19/2007 04/24/2007
05/02/2007 05/04/2007
05/07/2007 05/08/2007 05/14/2007 05/31/2007 06/01/2007 06/14/2007 06/18/2007 08/17/2007

25 NOTICE of Deposition of John Cook, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
26 MOTION for Reconsideration re Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration by Lumpy, LLC. (Catanese, David) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
27 Notice re Service of Second Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
28 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 26 Granting Defendant Notice of Clarification and Denying Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 4/11/07.(LCF) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
29 MOTION for Reconsideration re Motion for Reconsideration by Lumpy, LLC. (Catanese, David) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
30 Notice re Service of Third Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
31 NOTICE of Deposition of Jeff Majerle, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
32 NOTICE of Deposition of Weslie McDowell, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
33 NOTICE of Deposition of Patrick Zacek, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
34 ORDER re 29 MOTION for Reconsideration re Motion for Reconsideration by Lumpy, LLC. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff file a response to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration within 10 days of the date of this order. Defendant may file a reply. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 4/24/07. (LCF) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
35 MOTION for Extension of Time by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Extension of Time)(Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
36 RESPONSE to Motion re 29 MOTION for Reconsideration re Motion for Reconsideration filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories# 2 Exhibit Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production)(Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
37 Notice re Service of Fourth Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
38 RESPONSE to Motion re 35 MOTION for Extension of Time filed by Lumpy, LLC. (Catanese, David) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
39 ORDER granting 35 Plaintiff Motion for Extension of Time, to and including 7/3/07, solely for the purpose of deposing Jeff Majerle. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/14/07.(LCF) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
40 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 31 Notice of Deposition of Jeff Majerle. (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
41 ORDER denying 29 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/1/07.(LCF) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
42 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order dated June 1, 2007 (DKT No. 41) and Notice of Clarification by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
43 ORDER denying 42 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The Court will not issue any further orders on this discovery dispute. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/18/07.(LCF) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
44 First MOTION for Summary Judgment by Lumpy, LLC. (Catanese, David) (Entered: 08/17/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-830 As of: 06/03/2017 10:13 AM MST 5 of 10

08/17/2007 08/20/2007 08/20/2007 08/21/2007
08/22/2007
08/22/2007 08/27/2007
09/10/2007 09/14/2007 09/25/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/25/2007

45 STATEMENT of Facts by Lumpy, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−3 to Defendant's Separate Statement of Facts# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 4−14 to Defendant's Separate Statement of Facts)(Catanese, David) Modified on 8/22/2007 (SAT). INCORRECT EVENT TYPE SELECTED. THIS EVENT HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM "MOTION" TO "STATEMENT". (Entered: 08/17/2007)
46 STATEMENT of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Lumpy, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−3 to Defendant's Statement of Facts# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 4−14 to Defendant's Statement of Facts)(Catanese, David) Modified on 8/22/2007 (SAT). INCORRECT EVENT TYPE SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM "MOTION" TO "STATEMENT". (Entered: 08/20/2007)
47 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time For Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Lumpy, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for Extension of Time for Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment)(Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
48 ORDER re 47 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time For Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment − that the Joint Stipulation for Extension of Time will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Page 11, Section G, specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 8/21/07. (KMG) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
49 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 45 First MOTION for Summary Judgment Separate Statement of Facts filed by Lumpy, LLC, 46 First MOTION for Summary Judgment Separate Statment of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Lumpy, LLC. Description of deficiency: Incorrect document type selected. The correct event is Statement and it is found in the Other Documents menu. (SAT) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
50 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 47 Motion for Extension of Time to file its Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment until October 1, 2007. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 8/22/07.(CLB) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
51 STATEMENT of Defendant's Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment re 44 First MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Lumpy, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−3 to Defendant's Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 4−14 to Defendant's Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment)(Catanese, David) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
52 Minute Order: Motion Hearing set on 10/29/07 at 10:00AM before Judge Susan R Bolton re: 44 First MOTION for Summary Judgment. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
53 STIPULATION for Extension of TIme to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
54 ORDER re 53 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment, Pla is granted an extension to file its Response until 10/10/07. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 09/25/07. (ESL) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
55 RESPONSE in Opposition re 44 First MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
56 RESPONSE in Opposition re 45 First MOTION for Summary Judgment Separate Statement of Facts filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
57 RESPONSE in Opposition re 45 First MOTION for Summary Judgment Separate Statement of Facts RULE 56.1(b) RESPONSE filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
58 REPLY to Response to Motion re 44 First MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Lumpy, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibts to Reply)(Catanese, David) (Entered:

Case: 2:06-cv-830 As of: 06/03/2017 10:13 AM MST 6 of 10

10/29/2007 01/17/2008
02/01/2008 02/04/2008 02/04/2008
02/06/2008 02/07/2008
02/07/2008 02/07/2008 02/07/2008 02/07/2008 02/07/2008 02/07/2008 02/11/2008
02/20/2008 02/21/2008

10/25/2007)
59 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Hearing held on 10/29/07 re: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 44 . Argument presented. IT IS ORDERED taking under advisement 44 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.(Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.)(MAW) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
60 ORDER: On the Court's Own Motion, IT IS ORDERED continuing Pretrial Conference from January 28, 2008, to February 11, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. The Joint Proposed Pretrial Order shall be filed by February 4, 2008. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED continuing Jury Trial from February 12, 2008, to February 19, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 1/17/08. (MAW) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
61 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/1/08.(MAW) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
62 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Deadline on Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and Final Pretrial Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
63 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 62 Joint Motion for Extension of Time. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendant are granted an extension to file the Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order until Thursday, February 7, 2008, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming the Pretrial Conference of February 11, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. and the trial date of February 19, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/4/08.(MAW) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
64 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Continue Trial Date by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
65 ORDER granting 64 Joint Motion to Continue the Trial Date. The February 19, 2008 trial date is vacated and will be reset at the Final Pretrial Conference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming the Final Pretrial Conference set on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/7/08.(MAW) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
66 TRIAL BRIEF by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
67 STATEMENT of of the Case (EEOC's Proposed) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
68 REPORT of Joint Proposed Pretrial Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
69 Proposed Jury Instructions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
70 Proposed Voir Dire by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
71 Proposed Verdict Form by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
72 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Pretrial Conference held on 2/11/08. Trial date discussed. IT IS ORDERED setting Jury Trial on 3/13/08 at 09:00 AM before Judge Susan R Bolton. For reasons as stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED directing counsel to lodge an amended joint proposed pretrial order by 2/22/08. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that proposed voir dire, proposed jury instructions, objections to jury instructions and trial memorandum shall be filed no later than 2/22/08. (Court Reporter Kim Moll)(MAW) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
73 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Tin−Tin Diana Chen (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chen, Tin−Tin) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
74 MOTION for Reconsideration of Order Granting, in Part, Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-830 As of: 06/03/2017 10:13 AM MST 7 of 10

02/22/2008
02/22/2008 02/22/2008 02/22/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/26/2008 03/13/2008 03/13/2008
03/14/2008 03/18/2008 03/18/2008 03/18/2008
03/19/2008
03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008

75 SUPPLEMENT of EEOC's Notice of Supplemental Jury Instruction and Correction of Non−Model Instructions List by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Jury Instruction Re: Spoliation)(Chen, Tin−Tin) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
76 Notice of Filing Proposed Pretrial Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Lumpy, LLC (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
77 Proposed Voir Dire by Lumpy, LLC. (Catanese, David) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
78 Proposed Jury Instructions by Lumpy, LLC. (Catanese, David) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
79 ORDER denying 74 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/25/08.(MAW) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
80 OBJECTION re 78 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Defendant by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
81 APPROVED JOINT PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/26/08. (MAW) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
82 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for proceedings held on March 13, 14, 18 and 19 before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
83 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Jury Trial (Day 1) begun on 3/13/08. Plaintiff's challenges for cause regarding Juror #1 and Juror #22 are argued to the Court. IT IS ORDERED overruling defense counsel's objection regarding Juror #1, and Juror #1 will be excused. IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's challenge for cause regarding Juror #22. Defendant's challenge for cause regarding Juror #11 is argued to the Court. IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant's challenge for cause. Trial continued to 3/14/08. (Court Reporter Gary Moll)(MAW) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
84 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Jury Trial (Day 2) held on 3/14/08. Trial continued to 3/18/08. (Court Reporter Gary Moll)(MAW) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
85 Proposed Jury Instructions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
86 MOTION for Reconsideration re Health Insurance Premiums by Lumpy, LLC. (Catanese, David) Modified on 3/19/2008 (LAD). DOCUMENT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LRCiv 7.1(c). ATTORNEY NOTICED. (Entered: 03/18/2008)
87 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Jury Trial (Day 3) held on 3/18/08. IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion re: Title VII claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED taking under advisement Defendant's Motion re: punitive damages and Equal Pay Act claim. (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder (a.m.) / Elizabeth Lemke (p.m.)(MAW) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
88 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Jury Trial (Day 4) completed on 3/19/08. The Court having taken under advisement a portion of Defendant's oral Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion re: Equal Pay Act claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Health Insurance Premiums 86 . (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder (a.m.) / Elizabeth Lemke (p.m.)(MAW) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
93 Exhibit List by Lumpy, LLC.. (LAD) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
94 Exhibit List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(LAD) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
95 Witness List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (LAD) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
96 Witness List by Lumpy, LLC. (LAD) (Entered: 03/20/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-830 As of: 06/03/2017 10:13 AM MST 8 of 10

03/19/2008 03/19/2008
03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/20/2008
03/20/2008 03/20/2008
03/20/2008 03/20/2008
04/02/2008
04/03/2008
04/03/2008 04/03/2008

97 Preliminary Jury Instructions. (LAD) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
98 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Amending the Jury Trial (Day 4)on 3/19/08 88 . Reason for Amendment: deletion of the following sentence, "IT IS ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly." The balance of the minute entry remains the same. (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder (a.m.) / Elizabeth Lemke (p.m.)(MAW) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
99 Final Jury Instructions. (LAD) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
101 Jury Question During Trial. (LAD) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
102 REDACTED JURY VERDICTS. (LAD) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
103 Sealed Document: Judge's List. (LAD) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
104 Sealed Document: Judge's List. (LAD) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
105 Sealed Document: Judge's List. (LAD) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
106 Sealed Document: Report. (LAD) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
107 Sealed Document: List. (LAD) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
108 Sealed Document: Verdicts. (Attachments: # 1, # 2, # 3)(LAD) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
89 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Jury Trial Volume III held on 3/18/08 before Judge Susan R Bolton. Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/10/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/21/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/18/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
90 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
91 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Jury Trial Volume IV held on 3/19/08 before Judge Susan R Bolton. Court Reporter: Linda Schroeder. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/10/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/21/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/18/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
92 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
100 ORDER: The jury having returned its verdict on March 19, 2008, IT IS ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff lodge a proposed form of judgment within 10 days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/20/08. (MAW) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
109 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Lumpy, LLC for testimony of Christina Sedita and John Cooke during proceedings held on 3/14/08 before Judge Susan R Bolton. (BAS, ) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
110 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Jury Trial Day 1 held on 3/13/08 before Judge Susan R Bolton. Court Reporter: Gary Moll. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/24/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/5/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/2/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
111 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
112 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Jury Trial Day 2 held on 3/14/08 before Judge Susan R Bolton. Court Reporter: Gary Moll. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/24/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set

Case: 2:06-cv-830 As of: 06/03/2017 10:13 AM MST 9 of 10

04/03/2008 04/03/2008 04/03/2008 04/03/2008 04/11/2008 04/23/2008 05/06/2008
05/06/2008 05/07/2008
05/07/2008
05/08/2008
05/21/2008 06/05/2008 06/23/2008

for 5/5/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/2/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
113 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
114 LODGED Proposed Form of Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
115 Notice re Lodging of Form of Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lopez, P) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
116 MOTION for Injunctive Relief and Back Pay by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order re Injunctive Relief)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
117 OBJECTION to Proposed Order and Form of Judgment filed by Lumpy, LLC. (Catanese, David) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
118 REPLY to Response to Motion re 116 MOTION for Injunctive Relief and Back Pay filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
119 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Jury Trial Afternoon Session held on 3/18/08 before Judge Susan R Bolton. Court Reporter: Elizabeth A Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/27/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/6/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/4/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
120 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
121 ORDER sustaining dft's objections to the proposed form of final judgment and denying pla's 116 Motion for Injunctive Relief and Back Pay. FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of pla and against dft on the claim of pregnancy discrimination and on the claim for violation of the Equal Pay Act. FURTHER ORDERED directing that the judgment require dft to pay the charging party, Christine Sedita, damages in the amount of $200.00, plus interest accruing from 8/14/04 until paid in full. FURTHER ORDERED that if inquiry is made in the future that dft refrain from providing any negative information with respect to the charging party's job performance while employed by dft. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/6/2008.(LAD) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
122 CLERK'S JUDGMENT: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on the claim of pregnancy discrimination and on the claim for violation of the Equal Pay Act. Defendant is required to pay the charging party, Christine Sedita, damages in the amount of $200.00, plus interest accruing from August 14, 2004 until paid in full. (LAD) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
123 ORDER RE: EXHIBITS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the exhibits admitted in the above−entitled case are to be returned to counsel/agents of record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties are to remove the exhibits from the custody of the Clerk of the Court, pursuant to LRCiv 79.1, by June 9, 2008, or the Clerk maydestroy or otherwise dispose of those exhibits. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/8/08. (MAW) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
124 APPLICATION/NOTICE of BILL OF COSTS by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Documentation for Cost)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
125 OBJECTION re 124 Bill of Costs − Application/Notice filed by Lumpy, LLC. (Catanese, David) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
126 Taxation of Costs in amount of $ $3,518.22 against Defendant. Signed by Chief Deputy Michael O'Brien on 6/23/08. (BAR, ) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-830 As of: 06/03/2017 10:13 AM MST 10 of 10

07/18/2008

127 ORDER: On May 8, 2008, the Court issued an Order directing the parties to remove the exhibits admitted at trial from the custody of the Clerk of the Court by June 9, 2008, or the Clerk may destroy or otherwise dispose of those exhibits. As of this date, neither counsel have done so. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED counsel shall pick up their exhibits by July 25, 2008, or said exhibits shall be destroyed by the Clerk of the Court. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/18/08. (MAW) (Entered: 07/18/2008)