Case 2:04-cv-02419-PM-APW Document 1-1 Filed 11/29/2004 Page 1 of 6

V S QIS"':AICT COURT

.wESU:fi.H- O!STR!CT Of LOU!SIA.M.A ~I LEO

FILED . OISlkiCf COURT

NOV 2 9 2004

>_H 'STEP,"j, C·IS! '"'-'"~'"L o ... r rL'.'l'

~ AQBfRT

,
LL, CLER

INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRJCTCOURT 100\JUN 16 PM 3:14

sv \u

eun EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, NEW ORLE~~~ i .t ] ·;, I;. d YT E

c 04-1683 CEQOUAMLMEIMPSL~OY\MTENOTfOrPPtOR:T.UN2IT4Y1) 9-lL

CLI:.RK

V.

)
JUDGE MI~ALDI

csEcforMAG. 2

NOBLE DRILLING (U.S.) INC.

)

COMPLAINT

TE r Defendant.r•·1AGISTRA JPIDGE WILSOWY TRIAL DEMAND

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This action is brought under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and to provide appropriate relief to Robert T. Minter, Jr. ("Minter") who was adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Connnission" or "EEOC") alleges that Mr. Minter, race black, was subjected to a racially hostile work environment by Noble Drilling (U.S.) Inc. ("Noble Drilling") and discharged because he complained to Defendant about the racially hostile environment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

I.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 45 I, 133 I, 1337, I343

and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(£)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-S(f)(I) and (3) ("Title VII") and

Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 198la.
1

~~~<J1.w
.lL Dkt~'";-~--­
r ___ _ _ctRmDe~
- Doc. No.

Case 2:04-cv-02419-PM-APW Document 1-1 Filed 11/29/2004 Page 2 of 6

2.

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful are subject to the jurisdiction ofthe

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is anagencyofthe United

States ofAmerica charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and

is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(!)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-5(f)(l) and (3).

4.

At all relevant times, Defendant, Noble Drilling, has continuously been a Delaware

corporation doing business in the State of Louisiana with an office in the City of New Orleans, and

has continuously had at least 15 employees.

5.

At all relevant times, Defendant, Noble Drilling, has continuously been an employer

engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70l(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, Robert T. Minter, Jr.,

filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle VII by Noble Drilling. All conditions

precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7.

On or about June 20, 2003, Defendant, Noble Drilling engaged in unlawful

employment practices on one of its oil-rig platfonns located in the Gulf of Mexico, approximately

160 miles from its office in New Orleans, in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-2.

2

Case 2:04-cv-02419-PM-APW Document 1-1 Filed 11/29/2004 Page 3 of 6

a)

Robert T. Minter, Jr., black, was employed as a roustabout on the Noble

Drilling semi-submersible rig the Noble Homer Ferrington owned by Noble

Drilling located off the coast of Louisiana.

b)

On June 20, 2003, Mr. Minter was below deck with three white roustabouts

during a severe stonn. While waiting out the storm, Mr. Minter fell asleep,

during which time the three white roustabouts placed a noose around his

neck and suspended the noose over a pipe, holding the loose end, behaving

as ifthey were going to lynch Mr. Minter. Mr. Minter awoke abruptly in this

position, shocked and frightened that he was about to be lynched.

c)

Mr. Minter complained to his immediate supervisor who took no action. Mr.

Minter then complained to the next level supervisor, who cautioned him

about the consequences ofgoing forward with a complaint. Mr. Minter then

made a third complaint to the next level supervisor, the Rig Manager, who

advised that the situation would be discussed the next day.

d)

On June 21,2003, Mr. Minter met with the Offshore Instructional Manager,

at which time Mr. Minter was given a written disciplinary action for sleeping

while on tour. The three white roustabouts were given written disciplinary

actions for horseplay.

e)

Several hours later, Mr. Minter and the three white roustabouts were called

back to meet with the Offshore Instructional Manager and all were

terminated; Mr. Minter for sleeping while on tour and the three white

3

Case 2:04-cv-02419-PM-APW Document 1-1 Filed 11/29/2004 Page 4 of 6

roustabouts for "horseplay." While other white employees, including one of the three roustabouts involved in the noose incident, also had slept while on tour, they were given repeated verbal or written warnings and were not terminated.

f)

Following the termination ofMr. Minter and his white harassers, Defendant

placed all of them on a crew boat, in tight quarters, for their 8.0 hour,

unsupervised return trip to shore in New Orleans. This caused Mr. Minter

severe panic, stress, and anxiety over what might happen on the return trip.

8.

The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive

Mr. Minter of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an

employee because of his race and in retaliation for complaining of race discrimination.

9.

The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were

intentional.

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Robert T. Minter, Jr..
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, Noble Drilling, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in race discrimination and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race or participation in and opposition to a protected activity.

4

-------------------
Case 2:04-cv-02419-PM-APW Document 1-1 Filed 11/29/2004 Page 5 of 6

B.

Order Defendant, Noble Drilling, to institute and carry out policies, practices, and

programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the

effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

C.

Order Defendant Noble Drilling, Inc. to make whole Robert T. Minter, Jr., by

providing him with 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 reinstatement and/or front pay.

D.

Order Defendant Noble Drilling to make whole Mr. Minter, by providing him

compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices

described in paragraph 7 above, including, but not limited to, job search expenses and medical

expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.

E.

Order Defendant Noble Drilling to make whole Mr. Minter by providing him

compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices

complained of in paragraph 7 above, including, but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering,

inconvenience, embarrassment and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

F.

Order Defendant Noble Drilling to pay Mr. Minter punitive damages for its malicious

and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be 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 of this action.

JURY TRJAL DEMAND

5

Case 2:04-cv-02419-PM-APW Document 1-1 Filed 11/29/2004 Page 6 of 6
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. Respectfully Submitted, ERIC S. DREIBAND

D Supervisory Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Baltimore District Office 10 S. Howard Street, 3"' floor Baltim e, Maryland 21

Trial Attorney

A.

VSB No. 36326

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Norfolk Area Office 200 Granby Street, Suite 739 Norfolk, Virginia 23510 (757) 441-3505

1/\.2~ (757) 441-6720 (facsimile)

N. ELEANOR GRAHAM
Senior Trial Attorney/ "0J...t...
Bar Roll Number 16946

,d0~ \I.?.-._o_~-'-'­1

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION

OPPORTUNITY

New Orleans District Office 701 Loyola Avenue, Suite 600 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 Telephone: 504.589.6922 Facsimile: 504.589.2805

6

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Noble (U.S.) Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 373487 United States District Court,
W.D. Louisiana.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v.
NOBLE (U.S.) INC.
No. 04 CV 2419. | Feb. 16, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Debra M. Lawrence, Maria Morocco, Maria Salacuse, EEOC, Baltimore, MD, for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Terrill W. Boykin, Halima Narcisse Smith, Kriste L. Talton, Bordenave, Boykin & Ehret, New Orleans, LA, Marc H. Klein, Stephen F. Fink, Thompson & Knight, Dallas, TX, for Noble (U.S.) Inc.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM RULING
MINALDI, Magistrate J.
*1 This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. # 28] filed on September 6, 2005 and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 31] filed on September 7, 2005. This action was filed by the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (“EEOC”), for claims arising under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S .C. § 2000e et seq. The EEOC filed this action on behalf of Robert T. Minter (“Minter”) alleging that Minter, a black male, was subjected to a racially hostile work environment by the Defendant, NOBLE (U.S.) INC., (“Noble”) and was discharged for complaining of racial harassment. Specifically, the EEOC alleges that Minter had a noose tied around his neck by three white co-workers during his work assignment and that Noble terminated his employment in retaliation for reporting the incident. Noble submits that because (1) it took prompt remedial action after being notified of the alleged harassment, and (2) it terminated Minter’s employment for a legitimate, non discriminatory reason, no basis for the EEOC’s claims exist and summary judgment should be granted in its favor.
Background
Noble is an offshore drilling contractor. Noble owns and operates approximately 63 oil rigs stationed around the world. Aboard these rigs are approximately 25 to 30 crew members, whose jobs range from the entry level “roustabouts” to the Offshore Installation Manager (“OIM”). Also aboard the rigs are various contractors, such as caterers, cementers, and remote operated vehicle employees. Overall, Noble employs approximately 3,500 employees.
Minter began his drilling career with Noble in May of 2001 as an entry level “roustabout 1” aboard one of Noble’s semi-submersible oil rigs called the Noble Homer Ferrington.1 As an offshore employee, Minter worked a 14 day “hitch,” broken down into 12 hour days, each known as a tour. Upon the completion of a hitch, he and the rest of his crew would return to shore and report for work 14 days later. Prior to the incident that is the subject of this suit, Minter had no performance problems or other disciplinary issues.
On June 20, 2003, Minter and roustabouts Brian Dupre (“Dupre”), Shelton Richardson (“Richardson”) and Gregory Gwin (“Gwin”), all white, were instructed by their supervisor, Crane Operator Frank Guillory (“Guillory”), to clean and organize the number one column at the bow of the rig while a thunderstorm was passing through outside. Upon discovering that this
1

E.E.O.C. v. Noble (U.S.) Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
task already had been done, Guillory told them to wait until he called on them for the next project. As they waited, Minter fell asleep during which time the three white roustabouts placed a noose around his neck and suspended the other end around an overhead pipe. Richardson, balanced himself on an overhead beam above Minter, so that when Minter awoke he claims that he believed that he was going to be lynched.
Following his shift, Minter alleges that he reported the incident to both his first and second level supervisors, Guillory and Mike Malveaux, but claims that no satisfactory action was taken.2 Allegedly concerned that his immediate supervisors had not taken action, Minter decided to tape-record his next complaint to third-level supervisor, Rig Manager P.J. Hammond. Hammond tried to console Minter, suggested that it was just a joke, agreed that it was inappropriate, and assured him that he would handle the matter the following morning.3 Thereafter, Hammond brought the incident to the attention of OIM, Gary Gilmer (“Gilmer”) who, in turn, contacted corporate headquarters. Following that discussion, on the morning of June 21, 2003, Gilmer issued the following written warning to the three white roustabouts:
*2 Horseplay while on Noble property is a direct violation of Noble policy. This action will not be tolerated. This will serve as the last warning in regards to violation of policy.4
That same morning, Minter received the following written warning: Sleeping while on tour is a direct violation of Noble policy. This action will not be tolerated. This will serve as the last warning in regards to violation of policy.5
Minter was further ordered to “familiarize himself with company policy,” although no prohibition against sleeping on the job was included in Noble’s 61 page Safety Handbook at the time of this incident. A few hours after receiving the write-ups, all four roustabouts convened with Gary Gilmer and were told that a crew boat was coming to return them to shore and that they were being terminated. For the remainder of the work day the four were confined to their quarters, and in the early evening they boarded a boat for the six-hour ride back to shore. Minter alleges that he was petrified throughout his ride back to shore because the white roustabouts were on the crew boat with him. Minter alleges that he feared that the white roustabouts would hold him responsible for the loss of their jobs. He alleges that he remained awake and fearful the entire night. In the middle of the night, on June 22, 2003, the boat carrying the terminated roustabouts arrived at Cameron, Louisiana without incident. From Cameron, Minter arranged for transportation back to his home in Virginia.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant is able to demonstrate that the pleadings, affidavits, and other evidence available to the Court establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-54, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-88, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1355-57, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). When the nonmoving party has the burden of proof on an issue, the movant must state the basis for the motion and identify those portions of the pleadings, depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories, together with affidavits, that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2553; Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131-32 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825, 113 S.Ct. 82, 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992). A mere conclusory statement that the other side has no evidence is not enough to satisfy a movant’s burden. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 328, 106 S.Ct. at 2555.
Once the movant has shown the absence of material factual issues, the opposing party has a duty to respond, via affidavits or other means, asserting specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. at 2514; Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. The Court must view the evidence introduced and all factual inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services, 504 U.S. 451, 456-58, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 2077, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 (1992); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. at 1356. However, a party opposing summary judgment may not rest on mere conclusory allegations or denials in his pleadings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see also Topalian, 954 F.2d at 1131.
2

E.E.O.C. v. Noble (U.S.) Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
Law and Analysis
*3 Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating “against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).6
Plaintiff’s Hostile Work Environment Claim A Title VII violation may be established by proving that discrimination based upon race has created a hostile or abusive working environment. Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 66, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). A prima facie case of racial harassment alleging hostile work environment normally consists of five elements: (1) the employee belongs to a protected group; (2) the employee was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment complained of was based on race; (4) the harassment complained of was so severe or pervasive that it affected a term, condition or privilege of employment; (5) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment in question and failed to take prompt remedial action. Celestine v. Petroleos de Venezuella, SA 266 F.3d 343, 353 (C.A.5 (La.), 2001) (citing Watts v. Kroger Co., 170 F.3d 505, 509-10 (5th Cir.1999)).
Under a “continuing violation theory,” the EEOC asserts that in confining Minter for six hours on a boat with those who tied the noose around his neck, Noble maintained the existence of the hostile work environment originally created by the roustabouts responsible for the noose incident.7 For racial harassment to be actionable as a hostile work environment claim it must be “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). Ramsey v. Henderson, 286 F.3d 264, 268 (C.A.5 (La.),2002). Determination of whether an environment is offensive or abusive requires an ad hoc analysis, “focusing on factors such as the frequency of the conduct, the severity of the conduct, the degree to which the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating, and the degree to which the conduct unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Amie v. City of Jennings, Louisiana, 2005 WL 1788068, 1 (W.D.La.,2005) (citing Green v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 284 F.3d 642, 655 (5th Cir (La) March 15, 2002)). Simple teasing, offhand comments and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) rarely will be enough to sustain a hostile work environment claim. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 2283, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998). To establish that harassing conduct was severe or pervasive, an employee must meet both a subjective and objective test. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 370, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (U.S.,1993).
Although the EEOC perhaps has offered evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact that the noose incident was both objectively and subjectively severe, the mere presence of Minter’s alleged harassers on the same crew boat does not rise to the level of an actionable hostile work environment.8 First, although the EEOC claims that the boat ride was subjectively severe and pervasive, Minter admits that the boat ride was uneventful, recounting that he talked to his former colleagues during the trip and that “everything was casual.” See Minter Dep. at 119. Noble’s safety training supervisor, who had accompanied an ill worker on the boat, also confirmed that the trip proceeded without incident and that the four former roustabouts shook hands and said goodbye in a “jovial” manner upon reaching shore. See Deposition of Ralph Benoit at 11, 50-56, 65-71. More importantly, conduct is only actionable under a hostile work environment theory if it altered the terms or conditions of employment. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. 510 U.S. 17, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295, (U.S., 1993). Because Minter had been terminated by the time the boat trip took place, there were no terms or conditions of employment to alter.9
*4 Because the boat ride does not amount to actionable conduct on the part of Noble, the EEOC’s supervisor-created hostile work environment claim fails.10 Thus, the burden of proof remains with the EEOC to show that Noble failed to take prompt remedial action to address Minter’s complaints of harassment.
When a company, once informed of allegations of sexual harassment, takes prompt remedial action to protect the claimant, the company may avoid Title VII liability. See Jones v. Flagship Int’l, 793 F.2d 714, 719 (5th Cir.1986). Prompt remedial action must be “reasonably calculated to end the harassment.” Hockman v. Westward Communications, LLC, 407 F.3d 317, 329 (C.A.5 (Tex.), 2004) (citations omitted). The EEOC cites cases which hold that an employer cannot avoid Title VII liability for a hostile work environment by either immediately terminating the complaining employee or taking remedial action that leaves the plaintiff worse off because doing so creates an issue as to whether the employer’s response was in fact reasonably calculated to halt the harassment or instead was an act of retaliatory discharge.11 The facts of those cases, however, differ materially in that either (1) the only remedial action taken was to terminate the complaining employees or (2) the employees had not committed their own, unrelated work rule violations. Noble’s termination of the three white
3

E.E.O.C. v. Noble (U.S.) Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
roustabouts within hours of Minter’s complaint indisputably constitutes prompt remedial action as a matter of law.12 Whether or not it was justified in taking action against Minter is immaterial to the hostile work environment claim and is more appropriately analyzed under the EEOC’s retaliation claim.
Retaliation Fifth Circuit jurisprudence requires an employee to prove three elements to carry a retaliation claim: (1) that he has engaged in activity protected by Title VII; (2) that the employer took adverse employment action against him; and (3) that a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Retaliation claims are subject to the burden-shifting analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981), and St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). Accordingly, upon the establishment of a prima facie showing of retaliation, the burden then shifts to the defendant to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Sherrod v. American Airlines, Inc., 132 F.3d 1112, 1122 (5th Cir.1998). This burden on the employer is one of production, not persuasion, involving no credibility assessments. See Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255-56, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). If the defendant meets this burden, then the mandatory inference of discrimination created by the plaintiff’s prima facie case ceases and the plaintiff must adduce sufficient evidence that the defendant’s proffered reason is a pretext for retaliation. Price v. Marathon Cheese Corp., 119 F .3d 337 (5th Cir.1997). At all times, the ultimate issue in a retaliation case remains whether the protected conduct was a “but for” cause of the adverse employment decision. Long v. Eastfield College, 88 F.3d 300, 305 n. 4 (5th Cir.1996). Even if the employee’s conduct is a “substantial element” in the employer’s decision to terminate an employee, the employer escapes liability if it would have taken the same action irrespective of the protected activity. Id.
*5 For the purpose of establishing a prima facie case, the close temporal proximity between a plaintiff’s discharge and his protected activity serves as indirect proof of a causal connection. Armstrong v. City of Dallas, 997 F.2d 62, 67 (C.A.5 (Tex.), 1993). Consequently, the EEOC has established a prima facie case by showing that Minter was fired within hours of complaining of alleged racial harassment. Nevertheless, Noble claims to have discharged Minter because he admitted to violating a company safety rule; sleeping while on duty. Title VII’s protection does not insulate an employee from discipline for work rule violations. See Swanson v. General Services Admin., 110 F.3d 1180, 1188 n. 3 (5th Cir.1997). Accordingly, Noble has met its burden and the EEOC must now demonstrate that Noble’s proffered reason was actually a pretext for a retaliatory motive.
The EEOC asserts that a work-rule violation could not have been the true reason for Noble’s termination of Minter because (A) no rule prohibiting sleeping on the job was included in Noble’s 61 page Safety Handbook at the time of this incident and (B) even if such a rule existed, prior to Minter’s termination Noble did not make a practice of terminating employees for falling asleep on the job.
The fact that Noble’s rule prohibiting sleeping on the job was unwritten does not render it “nonexistent” as the EEOC’s suggests. See e.g. Stein v. National City Bank, 942 F.2d 1062, 1065 (C.A.6 (Ohio),1991) (“Whether a policy is written or unwritten has minimal probative value on the issue of pretext”).13 Noble claims that it communicated the rule orally to its employees during safety meetings and in fact each of Noble’s managers deposed in this suit testified to its existence.14 Even the supporting evidence submitted by the EEOC documents the fact that numerous employees were reprimanded and at least one employee had been terminated in the past for falling asleep on the job.
Regardless of whether or not the rule actually existed, however, a Title VII plaintiff may establish pretext by showing that employees not in the protected class engaged in similar acts but were not similarly disciplined. See Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft Co. ., 55 F.3d 1086, 1090 (5th Cir.1995); Wallace v. Methodist Hosp. System, 271 F.3d 212, 220 (C.A.5 (Tex.),2001) (quotations and citations omitted ) (a plaintiff may establish pretext through evidence of disparate treatment). The EEOC has provided evidence of several instances in which roustabouts aboard the Noble Homer Ferrington were caught sleeping during their shifts but were not terminated. Minter himself, alleges that he had been caught sleeping on the job, that he simply was told to get back to work, and that he did not receive a formal written warning. See PX 3, Minter dep., p. 107, 1.20-25, p. 108, l. 1-9. Roustabout Gwin, one of the roustabouts terminated as a result of the noose incident, had received multiple “write-ups” for sleeping on the job but was never terminated as a result. See PX 18. Employee Discipline for Gwin (sleeping); PX 5, Hammond dep., p. 33, l. 13-25, pp. 34-36. Likewise, former roustabouts Colby Jarrell and Darren Pittman claim not only that they were caught sleeping aboard the Noble Homer Ferrington on numerous occasions, but that they witnessed several other Noble employees get caught as well. With the exception of one employee who climbed to the perch of a crane and fell asleep in a particularly dangerous position, none of these employees was terminated.
4

E.E.O.C. v. Noble (U.S.) Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
*6 There is an important distinction between Noble’s treatment of Minter and that of the other employees caught sleeping on the job in that their disciplinary decisions were handed down by different decision-makers. To establish discriminatory intent by disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show that the employer gave preferential treatment to an employee outside the protected class in circumstances “nearly identical” to the plaintiff.15 Courts within the Fifth Circuit have frequently held that where different decision-makers are involved, the circumstances are not “nearly identical.”16
Although the EEOC concedes it cannot satisfy the “nearly identical” requirement, it argues that the involvement of Jimmy Puckett, Noble’s Gulf Coast Division Manager, in Minter’s disciplinary decision marks a “sharp ... deviation in protocol” which supports an inference of retaliation. See Plaintiff’s Resp. Mem. at 5-6. This argument is without merit. Puckett learned about Minter’s sleeping on duty because OIM Gary Gilmer properly recognized the seriousness of Minter’s allegations of racial harassment and reported the incident to upper management. Under these circumstances, the fact that Puckett ultimately made the disciplinary decisions involved in this incident reflects the gravity accorded this incident by management not a departure from procedure which evidences pretext. In investigating Minter’s complaint, Puckett learned that Minter had admitted to violating the safety rule against sleeping on duty and he imposed the same discipline as he had on all employees whom he learned had slept on duty.17 Because the EEOC does not identify a situation where Puckett did not discharge an employee for falling asleep, the EEOC has not raised a genuine issue of material fact in its retaliation claim.18
Therefore, for the reasons stated herein, the EEOC’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. # 28] is DENIED and Noble’s Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. # 31] is GRANTED.
Lake Charles, Louisiana, this 15 day of February, 2006.

Parallel Citations

87 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,288

Footnotes

1

The type of work roustabouts were asked to perform aboard the rig varied from heavy labor, including offloading boats and

stacking pipe to tasks that were not as physical, such as watching mudflow and drill cuttings flow through the “gumbo box” for 12

straight hours.

2

PX 3, Deposition of Robert T. Minter (“Minter Dep.”), p. 95, 1.5-15; PX 4 Affidavit of Robert T. Minter (“Minter Aff.”). Minter

alleges that upon hearing of the incident Guillory suggested that the white roustabouts didn’t mean anything by their actions. Still

upset, Minter alleges that he approached his second-level supervisor, Barge Engineer Mike Malveaux, also a black male who

allegedly told Minter that he knew of other racial situations and remarked that this is why he didn’t joke with white employees. Id.

Minter alleges that Malveuax then told him to think long and hard about where he wanted to go with this incident and that he had

to prepare himself for what would happen if he continued to take this incident up the chain of command. Id.

3

PX 4, Minter Aff. ¶ 8.

4

PX 7-9, Employee Discipline for Bryan Dupre; Employee Discipline for Gregory Gwin; Employee Discipline for Shelton

Richardson.

5

PX 10, Employee Discipline dated 6/21/03,

6

The EEOC’s “retaliation” charge is covered by Section 704 which prohibits discrimination against any employee, “because he has

opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in

any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3.

7

In the context of a hostile work environment claim, a “continuing violation” is a series of separate acts that collectively constitute

one “unlawful employment practice.” National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 117, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d

106 (2002).

8

In his own deposition Minter states that his reaction to the noose incident was one of shock; that he considered it to be a near death

experience and he couldn’t help but replay the incident over in his head. See Minter Dep., p. 93-94. Within a few days, he began

treatment and medication for post traumatic stress disorder and continues his treatment and medication today. Statement of Michele

Baldwin, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 attachment 1; Minter Dep., p. 5, 46-49. See also Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. 510 U.S. 17, 114

5

E.E.O.C. v. Noble (U.S.) Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295, (U.S.,1993) (Psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account in the court’s determination of whether or not the environment would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive). Thus the record indicates some evidence of Minter’s subjective belief that the conduct was severe and pervasive. Further in the present case, the combination of physical contact, Minter’s race and the powerful racist symbolism of a noose could be enough to elevate this incident to the level of objectively severe harassment. But the court need not reach a conclusion. Noble took prompt remedial action to address the harassment.

9

See Andrews v. Atlantic Marine, Inc., 2005 WL 2665345, 3 (S.D.Ala.,2005) (The employee’s work environment with defendants

ended upon his termination. Although his subsequent meeting with human resources may have been related to his termination or to

his request for rehire, that fact would not continue or resurrect his alleged discriminatory termination or hostile work

environment.).

10

In supervisor-created hostile work environment claims, the employer must assert the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense and bear

the burden of proving that (i) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly and harassing conduct, and (ii) the

harassed employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative opportunities provided by the employer. See

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 807, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998); Burlington Industries, inc. v. Ellerth,

524 U.S. 742, 765, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998).

11

See Goff v. Soundolier Div. of American Trading & Production Corp. 2000 WL 707810, 5 (N.D.Tex.,2000); Tutman v. WBBM-TV,

Inc./CBS, Inc., 209 F.3d 1044, 1049 (7th Cir.2000).

12

See, e.g. Hockman, 407 F.3d at 329 (“When a company, once informed of allegations of ... harassment, takes prompt remedial

action to protect the claimant, the company may avoid Title VII liability.”); Waymire v. Harris County, Tex., 86 F.3d 424, 429 (5th

Cir.1987) (investigation was sufficiently prompt despite lasting three months where supervisor reprimanded alleged harasser on the

day of the complaint and filed a preliminary report with his superior within one week).

13

See also Williams v. Alabama Indus. Dev’t Tr’g, 146 F.Supp .2d 1214, *1226 (M.D.Ala.,2001) (“... Congress does not force

employers to amass an encyclopedic collection of rules that are known throughout the shop. When an employee ... understands the

general thrust of an unwritten work rule, decisions based on the rule are not pretextual absent concrete evidence that the rule was

used as a mask for retaliation.”).

14

See Puckett Dep. at 56; Hammond Dep. at 31; Martin Dep. at 90; Guillory Dep. at 86; Malveaux Dep. at 70.

15

See e.g. Edwards v. Grand Casinos of Mississippi, Inc. 145 Fed.Appx. 946, 2005 WL 2000667 (C.A.5 (Miss. (C.A.5

(Miss.),2005); Keelan v. Majesco Software, Inc. 407 F.3d 332, 345 (C.A.5 (Tex.),2005); Wheeler v. BL Dev. Corp., 415 F.3d 399,

406 (5th Cir.2005); Okoye v. University of Tex. Houston Health Sci. Ctr., 245 F.3d 507, 512-13 (5th Cir.2001); Urbano v.

Continental Airlines, Inc., 138 F.3d 204, 206 (5th Cir), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1000, 119 S.Ct. 509, 142 L.Ed.2d 422 (1998).

16

See e.g. Wyvill v. United Cos. Life Ins. Co., 212 F.3d 296, 304 (5th Cir.2000) (involving ADEA claims); Burnett v. Thompson, 31

Fed. Appx. 839, 839 (5th Cir.2002) (per curiam ); Little v. Republic Refin. Co., 924 F.2d 93, 97 (5th Cir.1991).

17

See Puckett Decl. ¶ 8 (Def.’ MSJ App. 2); Puckett Dep. at 63-65 (Prior to June 20, 2003, Puckett had no knowledge of any

employee caught sleeping on the job, who was not terminated).

18

Although, the EEOC advances additional arguments, they are likewise insufficient to establish retaliatory motive. First, even

though the EEOC may use the close temporal proximity between Minter’s complaint of harassment and his termination to establish

its prima facie case, timing alone does not establish that the former was the “but for” cause of the latter. See Seaman v. CSPH, Inc.,

179 F.3d 297, 301 (5th Cir.1999). “If timing alone were enough, then any action taken against [an employee following a protected

activity], no matter how justified, could be sustained as discriminatory.” Swanson, 110 F.3d at 1188 n. 3; Accord Kolpakchi v.

Principi, 113 Fed. Appx. 633, 639 (5th Cir.2004); Juarez-Keith v. U.S. Foodservice, inc., 2005 WL 548074, at 8 (N.D.Tex. Mar.8,

2005). Minter’s complaint was followed closely by his termination because his complaint included an admission to falling asleep

on the job. The temporal proximity between the two does not detract from Puckett’s assertion that he terminated Minter for

violating Noble’s prohibition against sleeping on the job.

Second, in quoting § 4.13 of Noble’s Administrative Policy Manual, the EEOC omits the language that “... in certain

circumstances, [Noble] may find it necessary to impose immediate disciplinary action, including termination, without prior notice

or counseling.” Consequently, Puckett’s actions did not conflict with Noble’s written policy. Even if Puckett had deviated from

policy, Fifth Circuit jurisprudence is clear that noncompliance with personnel policies is not evidence of discrimination. “[ ]Title

VII does not protect employees from arbitrary employment practices, only their discriminatory intent.” Upshaw v. Dallas Heart

Group, 961 F.Supp. 997, 1002 (N.D.Tex.1997).

6

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Noble Drilling (U.S.), Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
2004 WL 2700289 United States District Court,
E.D. Louisiana. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
v. NOBLE DRILLING (U.S.) INC. No. Civ.A.04-1683. | Nov. 19, 2004.
Attorneys and Law Firms Nancy Eleanor Graham, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, New Orleans, LA, Kenneth M. Golski, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Norfolk, VA, for Plaintiff. Terrill W. Boykin, Rodney, Bordenave, Boykin, & Ehret, New Orleans, LA, for defendant. Opinion
ORDER AND REASONS
BARBIER, J. *1 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, Alternatively, to Transfer Venue. (Rec.Doc. 3). The motion is opposed. (Rec.Doc. 8). The Court finds that venue is improper in the Eastern District of Louisiana and, in the interest of justice, the case should be transferred to the Western District of Louisiana.
BACKGROUND On June 16, 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed this action in the Eastern District of Louisiana under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). The EEOC filed the action on behalf of Robert T. Minter, Jr. (“Minter”), after it determined that Noble Drilling, Inc. (“Defendant”) deprived Minter of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected his status as an employee because of his race and in retaliation for complaining of race discrimination. Specifically, the EEOC alleges that Minter had a noose placed around his neck by three white co-workers during his work assignment, and as a result of reporting the incident, Defendant terminated Minter.1 The alleged incident occurred on a semi-submersible oil rig owned and operated by Defendant. The oil rig was located approximately eighty-eight miles off the coast of Louisiana in international waters outside of the United States.2 After Minter reported the incident, Defendant terminated the three white co-workers and Minter.3 According to Defendant, the decision to terminate Minter was made at Defendant’s corporate headquarters in Sugar Land, Texas.4 Upon termination, the four employees were transported together on a crew boat to Cameron, Louisiana.5
STANDARD OF REVIEW Congress has adopted special venue provisions for Title VII cases.6 Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) states: [A Title VII action] may be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and
1

E.E.O.C. v. Noble Drilling (U.S.), Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
administered, or in the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice, but if the respondent is not found within any such district, such an action may be brought within the judicial district in which the respondent has his principal office. Thus, venue in a Title VII case may be brought in any judicial district where (1) the allegedly unlawful practice occurred, (2) the employment records are kept, or (3) where the alleged victim would have worked. The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the venue provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1406 are also applicable and should be considered in Title VII cases.7 Section 1404(a) provides that for “the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” The decision to transfer a pending case is within the sound discretion of the district court.8 The party moving for a change of venue bears the burden of proving why the forum should be changed.9 Additionally, the Plaintiff’s choice of forum generally should not be disturbed, unless the balance of factors strongly favors the moving party.10
DISCUSSION
*2 According to the Title VII venue statute, venue is improper in the Eastern District. The allegedly unlawful employment practice did not occur in the Eastern District, employee records are not kept in the Eastern District, and there is no indication that Minter would have worked in the Eastern District had he remained employed by Defendant. Consequently, the case may be dismissed or, in the interest of justice, the matter may be transferred to a district where the action might have been brought. For the reasons stated more fully below, the Court finds that venue is proper in the Western District of Louisiana and the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Plaintiff desires to proceed in the Western District of Louisiana, while Defendant requests that the case be transferred to the Southern District of Texas.
Plaintiff indicated in its opposition to Defendant’s motion that if venue is improper in the Eastern District of Louisiana, the matter should be transferred to Louisiana’s Western District. It is undisputed that a portion of the alleged hostile work environment occurred in international waters outside of the United States and not in Louisiana. However, Plaintiff contends that the hostile work environment continued when Minter was placed on a crew boat with the same co-workers that allegedly placed a noose around Minter’s neck. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that the method by which Defendant put Minter ashore constituted a discriminatory employment practice because Plaintiff was left alone with the three co-workers and without transportation, lodging or assistance.
Defendant contends that venue only lies in the Southern District of Texas. Specifically, Defendant states that the allegedly unlawful practice of retaliatory discharge occurred in the Southern District of Texas because that is where the decision was made to terminate Minter. Further, Defendant explains that venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas because the employment records are kept there.
The Court finds that based on the facts alleged, a portion of the allegedly unlawful employment practice occurred in the Western District of Louisiana. Consequently, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), venue is proper in the Western District. However, venue also exists in Texas because the employment records are kept at Defendant’s office in Texas and the decision to terminate Minter was made in Texas.
As noted above, the factors provided in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1406 are considered in Title VII cases. A court must balance a number of factors to determine where a case should be transferred. “Both private and public interest factors influence the court’s transfer determination.”11 The private factors, which involve the preferences and conveniences of the parties and witnesses in the case include the following:
(1) the availability and convenience of witnesses and parties; (2) the cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses and other trial expenses; (3) the location of books and records; (4) the place of the alleged wrong; (5) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (6) the possibility of delay and prejudice if transfer is granted; and (7) the location of counsel.12
*3 “The public interest factors address broader objectives, such as the fair and efficient administration of the judicial system.13 The Court must determine whether the balance of the public and private interest factors ‘strongly outweighs the plaintiff’s choice of forum’ such that transfer is appropriate.”14
Although there are factors pointing to both the Western District of Louisiana and the Southern District of Texas, the private interest factors that favor venue in Texas do not outweigh the factors favoring Louisiana, nor do they “strongly outweigh” the
2

E.E.O.C. v. Noble Drilling (U.S.), Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
Plaintiff’s choice of forum. In this case, the convenience and availability of witnesses does not favor one venue over the other. The strongest factor favoring venue in Texas is the location of the employment records, however, this matter does not appear to involve voluminous document production or discovery.
The factor pertaining to the place of the alleged wrong indicates that the matter should be transferred to Louisiana’s Western District. Notably, Minter was required to report to work in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Further, an allegedly adverse employment action may have occurred in Louisiana (1) when Plaintiff was transported to shore in Cameron Parish and (2) when Plaintiff was ultimately released from his employment at the dock. Additionally, Plaintiff desires to proceed in the Western District of Louisiana. Consequently, the private interest factors favor Louisiana over Texas and, in the interest of justice, the case should be transferred. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, Alternatively, to Transfer Venue should be and hereby is GRANTED and this case is transferred to the Western District of Louisiana.

Parallel Citations

94 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1844

Footnotes

1

Complaint, ¶ 7 (Rec.Doc. 1).

2

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or Alternatively to Transfer Venue, p. 2 (Rec.Doc. 3).

3

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or Alternatively to Transfer Venue, p. 3 (Rec.Doc. 3).

4

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or Alternatively to Transfer Venue, p. 3 (Rec.Doc. 3).

5

Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or Alternatively to Transfer Venue, p. 2

(Rec.Doc. 8).

6

In re Horseshoe Entertainment, 337 F.3d 429, 432 (5th Cir.2003).

7

Id. at 433.

8

Jarvis Christian College v. Exxon Corp., 845 F.2d 523, 528 (5th Cir.1988).

9

Peteet v. Dow Chem. Co., 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir.1989).

10

See Houston Trial Reports, Inc. v. LRP Publications, Inc., 85 F.Supp.2d 663, 667-68 (S.D.Tex. Aug.31, 1999) (citing Henderson v.

AT & T Corp., 918 F.Supp. 1059, 1065 (S.D.Tex.1996); see also Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th Cir.1966)).

11

Houston Trial Reports, Inc., 85 F.Supp.2d at 668.

12

Id.

13

See id. (citing Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-880 (3d Cir.1995)).

14

See id. (citing Henderson, 918 F.Supp. at 1068).

3

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana - Docket R... https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?803776483133881-L_9...
ATTN, CLOSED
U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana (Lake Charles) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04-cv-02419-PM-APW

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Noble Drilling (U S) Inc Assigned to: Judge Patricia Minaldi Referred to: Honorable Alonzo P Wilson Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 11/29/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Debra M Lawrence E E O C (Baltimore) 10 S Howard St 3rd Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 410-962-4349 Fax: 410-962-4270 Email: debra.lawrence@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth M Golski E E O C (Norfolk) 200 Granby St Ste 739 Norfolk, VA 23510 757-441-3505 Fax: 441-6720 TERMINATED: 01/06/2005

Maria Morocco E E O C (Baltimore) 10 S Howard St 3rd Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 410-962-4349 Fax: 962-4270

Maria Salacuse E E O C (Baltimore) 10 S Howard St 3rd Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 410-962-4349 Fax: 962-4270

Nancy Eleanor Graham E E O C (NO) 1555 Poydras St Ste 1900 New Orleans, LA 70112

1 of 10

6/26/2007 4:10 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana - Docket R... https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?803776483133881-L_9...

V. Defendant Noble Drilling (U S) Inc

504-589-6817 Fax: 504-589-2805 Email: nancy.graham@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 01/06/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terrill W Boykin Bordenave Boykin & Ehret 400 Poydras St Ste 2450 New Orleans, LA 70130 504-527-5450 Fax: 504-527-5436 Email: twb@bbelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Halima Narcisse Smith Bordenave Boykin & Ehret 400 Poydras St Ste 2450 New Orleans, LA 70130 504-527-5450 Fax: 504-527-5436
Kriste L Talton Bordenave Boykin & Ehret 400 Poydras St Ste 2450 New Orleans, LA 70130 504-527-5450 Fax: 504-527-5436 Email: klt@bbelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc H Klein Thompson & Knight (Dallas) 1700 Pacific Ave Ste 3300 Dallas, TX 75201-0490 214-969-1700 Fax: 969-1751 Email: marc.klein@tklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen F Fink Thompson & Knight (Dallas) 1700 Pacific Ave Ste 3300 Dallas, TX 75201-0490 214-969-1120 Fax: 214-880-3212

2 of 10

6/26/2007 4:10 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana - Docket R... https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?803776483133881-L_9...

Email: stephen.fink@tklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/29/2004 11/29/2004 11/29/2004
11/29/2004 11/29/2004 11/29/2004 11/29/2004
11/29/2004 11/29/2004
11/29/2004
11/29/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Noble Drilling (U S) Inc with Jury Demand filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in USDC/EDLA; #04-cv-1683-J-M2 on 6/16/04. (Attachments: # 1 Civil cover sheet)(Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
2 MINUTE ENTRY: case will be called on 9/1/04 at 11:00 am in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 on 8/16/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
3 MOTION to Dismiss for improper venue or alternatively to Transfer Case by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 on 8/23/04.. (Attachments: # 1 memo in support; # 2 declaration and # 3 notice of hearing)(Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc filed in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 on 8/23/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
5 MINUTE ENTRY: preliminary conference scheduled on 9/7/04 at 2pm in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 and filed 8/25/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
6 MINUTE ENTRY: responsive motion has been filed and this matter is removed from courts call docket set for 9/1/04; filed in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 on 8/25/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
7 MOTION to Continue hearing date on defendants motion to dismiss for improper venue or alternatively to transfer consent by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 on 8/30/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
8 ORDER granting 7 Motion to Continue Hearing on defendants motion to dismiss for improper venue or in the alternative to tranfer 3 signed in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 on 8/31/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
9 MINUTE ENTRY : preliminary conference held on 9/8/04. Counsel advised that all parties do not consent to proceed before magistrate judge. Jury trial has been demanded. Presiding district judge is notified that he may schedule a conference to set pretrial and trial dates. Filed in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1684-J-M2 on 9/8/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
10 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 3 MOTION to Dismiss for improper venue and alternatively to Transfer Case filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 on 9/29/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
11 MINUTE ENTRY : IT IS ORDERED that the automatic referral of this matter to the magistrate judge is hereby VACATED. Filed in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 on 10/12/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)

3 of 10

6/26/2007 4:10 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana - Docket R... https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?803776483133881-L_9...

11/29/2004 11/29/2004 11/29/2004 11/29/2004 11/29/2004 11/29/2004
12/07/2004 12/08/2004 12/10/2004 12/21/2004 12/21/2004 12/29/2004 12/30/2004
01/06/2005
02/18/2005

12 MOTION for Leave to File reply brief by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 on 10/5/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
13 ORDER granting 12 Motion for Leave to File reply brief. Filed in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 on 10/12/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
14 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support re 3 MOTION to Dismiss for improper venue or alternatively to Transfer Case filed by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 on 10/12/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
15 MOTION to supplement motion to dismiss for improper venue or alternatively to transfer 3 by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc filed in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 on 10/12/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
16 ORDER granting 15 Motion to supplement motion to dismiss for improper venue or alternatively to transfer 3 filed in USDC/EDLA; #04cv1683-J-M2 on 10/21/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
17 DISTRICT CASE transferred in from Eastern District of Louisiana; Original file with documents numbered 1-13, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. (Attachments: # 1 transmittal letter from USDC/EDLA and # 2 docket sheet from USDC/EDLA)(Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
18 NOTICE of Corporate Disclosure Statement Requirement sent to Terrill W Boykin, Stephen F Fink, Kenneth M Golski & N Eleanor Graham on behalf of Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
19 ORDER of transfer (from USDC/EDLA). Signed by Judge Robert H Shemwell Sr on 12/8/04. (Prest, B) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
20 ANSWER to Complaint by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc.(Williams, L) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
21 MOTION for Stephen F Fink and Marc H Klein to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits # 2 proposed order)(Wormser, C) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
FILING FEE: on behalf of Noble Drilling (U S) Inc in the amount of $50.00, receipt number 41644 (Wormser, C) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
22 ORDER granting 21 Motion for Stephen F Fink and Marc H Klein to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Alonzo P Wilson on 12/29/04. (Wormser, C) (Entered: 12/30/2004)
23 ORDER: It is ORDERED that the EEOC, as government employees, will not be required to file a motion for admission pro hac vice. The government attorney's shall be deemed admitted without local counsel. Signed by Judge Alonzo P Wilson on 12/30/04. (Wormser, C) (Entered: 01/05/2005)
24 PRAECIEP filed by Counsel for E E O C. Attorney Debra Lawrence shall serve as Plaintiff's desigated trial attorney. Attorneys Kenneth M Golski, Amy E Garber and N Eleanor Graham are substituted with attorneys: Maria Salacuse and Maria Morocco (Wormser, C) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
25 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 3/24/2005 10:30 AM before Honorable Alonzo P Wilson. Signed by Judge

4 of 10

6/26/2007 4:10 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana - Docket R... https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?803776483133881-L_9...

03/02/2005 03/11/2005 03/16/2005 03/24/2005 09/06/2005
09/07/2005
09/07/2005 09/07/2005 09/08/2005
09/08/2005 09/09/2005 09/13/2005 10/03/2005

Alonzo P Wilson on 2/18/05. (Wormser, C) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
RECEIVED CONSENT TO PROCEED FORM/RULE 73(b) FORM by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (Benoit, T) (Entered: 03/04/2005)
RECEIVED CONSENT TO PROCEED FORM/RULE 73(b) FORM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Benoit, T) (Entered: 03/11/2005)
26 REPORT on Rule 26(f) Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision and Noble Drilling (U S ) Inc. (Williams, L) (Entered: 03/16/2005)
27 TRIAL FIXING ORDER: Jury Trial set for 12/5/2005 10:00 AM in Lake Charles, courtroom 4 before Patricia Minaldi. Signed by Judge Alonzo P Wilson on 03/24/2005. (Barkley, B) (Entered: 03/24/2005)
28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Notice of manual attachment # 3 List of Undisputed Material Facts# 4 Proposed Order)(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
NOTICE OF SERVICE SUSPENDED: Notice to Terrill W Boykin is discontinued in this case due to unsuccessful mail delivery resulting from Hurricane Katrina. Until mail delivery resumes and/or notification of a change of address or substitution of counsel is received, above-named counsel will not receive notice. (crt,Brown, A) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
29 NOTICE of Motion Setting without oral argument regarding 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Motion day set for 10/12/2005 before Judge Patricia Minaldi. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
31 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Notice of Manual Attachment# 3 List of Undisputed Facts# 4 Proposed Order)(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
30 JOINT MOTION to Extend Deadlines to Respond to 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
*** Motions Transferred to Judge Patricia Minaldi regarding 30 JOINT MOTION to Extend Deadlines to Respond to 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (referred by Lafayette office). (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
32 NOTICE of Motion Setting without oral argument regarding 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion day set for 10/12/2005 before Judge Patricia Minaldi. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
33 ORDER granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 9/30/2005. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
34 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of manual attachment # 2 Statement of material facts)(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 10/04/2005)

5 of 10

6/26/2007 4:10 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana - Docket R... https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?803776483133881-L_9...

10/27/2005 10/27/2005 10/28/2005 10/28/2005 10/28/2005 10/31/2005
11/02/2005 11/04/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005

35 RESPONSE MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Appendix to Response Memorandum in Opposition# 2 Statement of Disputed Facts)(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
36 MOTION to Strike and Memorandum in Support by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
37 NOTICE of Motion Referred to Chambers due to motion day of 10/12/05 on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 36 MOTION to Strike and Memorandum in Support. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
38 JOINT MOTION for Continuance of Trial, Extension of Trial Related Deadlines, and Setting Deadline to Reply in Support of Motions for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (crt,Williams, L) Modified on 11/3/2005 to remove deficient status; See 40 Corrective Document (Whidden, C). (Entered: 10/31/2005)
*** Motions Transferred to Judge Patricia Minaldi regarding 38 DEFICIENT? JOINT MOTION for Continuance of Trial, Extension of Trial Related Deadlines, and Setting Deadline to Reply in Support of Motions for Summary Judgment. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
39 NOTICE of Deficiency to Debra M Lawrence on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re: Joint Motion for Continuance of Trial, Extension of Trial Related Deadlines, and Setting Deadline to Reply in Support of Motions for Summary Judgment submitted on October 28, 2005. Reason: A signature by permission is not deemed by the judges of this district to fulfill the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P.11, and no proposed order accompanied this motion. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
40 CORRECTIVE DOCUMENT entitled Signature Page filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding 38 Joint Motion for Continuance of Trial, Extension of Trial Related Deadlines, and Setting Deadline to Reply in Support of Motions for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(crt,Whidden, C) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
41 REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
42 MEMORANDUM IN REPLY to Defendant's Response Memorandum in Opposition to 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
43 ORDER granting 38 JOINT MOTION for Continuance of Trial, Extension of Trial-Related Deadlines, and Setting Deadline to Reply in Support of Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Patricia Minaldi on 11/07/05. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
Set Deadlines as to 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Replies due by 11/7/2005. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered:

6 of 10

6/26/2007 4:10 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana - Docket R... https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?803776483133881-L_9...

11/07/2005 11/08/2005 11/09/2005
11/10/2005 11/23/2005 11/29/2005
12/19/2005 12/21/2005 01/18/2006 02/10/2006 02/10/2006

11/07/2005)
Reset Trial: Jury Trial set for 3/13/2006 10:00 AM before Judge Patricia Minaldi. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
44 MINUTE ENTRY/ORDER Setting 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Motion day set for 11/29/2005 02:00 PM before Judge Patricia Minaldi. Signed by Judge Patricia Minaldi on 11/08/05. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
NOTICE OF SERVICE RESTORED: Notice to Terrill W Boykin has been RESUMED. Aforementioned counsel is advised that they will not recieve notice of any activity that occurred in this case from the time notice was suspended until this entry. Counsel should obtain a report of filings by running a Docket Activity for My Cases Report via PACER. (crt,Alvarez, S) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
45 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION to Defendant's 36 MOTION to Strike filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert Minter# 2 Declaration of Colby Jarrell)(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
46 LETTER from Debra M Lawrence to Clerk of Court enclosing the original Exhibit No. 30 regarding 45 Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion to Strike filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (crt,Whidden, C) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
47 MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Patricia Minaldi : MOTION HEARING held on 11/29/2005 re 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,, 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc, RULING: UNDER ADVISEMENT. (Court Reporter Martha Frye.) (crt,Benoit, J) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
48 ORDER denying 36 Motion to Strike. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the unsworn declarations of Robert Minter, Colby Jarrell, and Darren Pittman are STRICKEN and replaced with sworn affidavits. Signed by Judge Patricia Minaldi on 12/19/05. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 701 Loyola Ave Ste 600, New Orleans, LA 70113, re: Notice of Service Restored, returned by U S Postal Svc marked: Not MarkedDocument Re-Mailed. (crt,Brown, A) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable: Mail sent to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 701 Loyola Ave Ste 600, New Orleans, LA 70113, re: 29 Notice of Motion Setting without oral argument returned by U S Postal Svc marked: Return to Sender. (crt,Brown, A) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
49 PRETRIAL Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (aty,Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
50 EXHIBIT LIST by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (aty,Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 02/10/2006)

7 of 10

6/26/2007 4:10 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana - Docket R... https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?803776483133881-L_9...

02/10/2006 02/10/2006
02/10/2006 02/10/2006 02/10/2006
02/10/2006 02/10/2006 02/10/2006 02/13/2006 02/14/2006 02/16/2006 02/16/2006

51 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (aty,Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
52 First MOTION in Limine to Exclude all Evidence of Mr. Minter's Marital Difficulties by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude all Evidence of Mr. Minter's Marital Difficulties# 2 Text of proposed order)(aty,Lawrence, Debra) Modified on 2/10/2006 to remove duplicate wording from the description of the attachments(Whidden, C). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
53 MOTION in Limine by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support# 2 Proposed Order)(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
54 NOTICE of Motion Referred to Chambers due to trial setting of March 13, 2006 regarding 53 MOTION in Limine and 52 First MOTION in Limine to Exclude all Evidence of Mr. Minter's Marital Difficulties. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
55 Second MOTION in Limine to Exclude Unsigned Typed Narrative by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1# 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit 2# 4 Plaintiff's Exhibit 3# 5 Text of proposed order)(aty,Lawrence, Debra) Modified on 2/10/2006 to remove duplicate wording in the description of the attachments(Whidden, C). (Entered: 02/10/2006)
56 NOTICE of Motion Referred to Chambers due to trial setting of 3/13/06 regarding 55 Second MOTION in Limine to Exclude Unsigned Typed Narrative. (crt,Whidden, C) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
57 PRETRIAL Statement by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Designation of Deposition Testimony# 2 List of Trial Exhibits)(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
58 TRIAL WITNESSES (filed under seal) by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (This document was filed as an attachment to doc 57 Pretrial Statement, but is sealed per the Privacy Protection Act).(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
59 MOTION to Bifurcate by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
60 NOTICE of Motion Setting regarding 59 MOTION to Bifurcate. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
61 MEMORANDUM RULING denying 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and granting 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. Signed by Judge Patricia Minaldi on 2/16/06. (crt,Monceaux, P) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
62 JUDGMENT DENYING 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and GRANTING 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc, and plaintiff's claim against defendant be DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Patricia Minaldi on 2/16/06. (crt,Monceaux, P) (Entered: 02/16/2006)

8 of 10

6/26/2007 4:10 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana - Docket R... https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?803776483133881-L_9...

02/16/2006 03/14/2006 03/20/2006 03/31/2006 04/17/2006
04/17/2006 05/01/2006 05/03/2006
05/08/2006 06/12/2006 06/26/2006
08/01/2006

63 FIRST AMENDED LIST OF TRIAL EXHIBITS by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
64 BILL OF COSTS by Noble Drilling (U S) Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Application of Defendant for Recovery of Costs and Memorandum in Support; # 2 Notice of manual attachment)(crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
65 RESPONSE in Opposition by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 64 Bill of Costs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(aty,Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
TRANSCRIPT of Oral Arguments held on November 29, 2005 before Judge Patricia Minaldi, consisting of 19 pages. Court Reporter: Martha Frye. (crt,Williams, L) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
66 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as to 62 Order, 61 Memorandum Ruling entered by Judge Patricia Minaldi. FEE STATUS NOT PAID. Counsel/Appellant is responsible for submitting Transcript Order Form. (aty,Lawrence, Debra) Modified on 4/17/2006 (Joffrion, B). (Entered: 04/17/2006)
67 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 66 Notice of Appeal, (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
68 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 66 Notice of Appeal, transcript already on file in Clerk's office. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
69 CERTIFIED AND TRANSMITTED Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 66 Notice of Appeal, (1 Volumes of Records; 2 Containers of Exhibits; 1 Volumes of Transcripts) Record retained in the district clerk's office. Certified Electronic record transmitted this date. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
70 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Withdrawal re 66 Notice of Appeal, (aty,Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
71 COST TAXED. (crt,Dean, S) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
72 MOTION to Withdraw Notice of Appeal by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(aty,Lawrence, Debra) Modified on 6/26/2006 to give description to the attachments and to create docket entry relationship to 66 Notice of Appeal (Whidden, C). (Entered: 06/26/2006)
73 ORDER granting 72 Motion to Withdraw 66 Notice of Appeal, . Signed by Judge Patricia Minaldi on 8/1/06. (crt,Joffrion, B) (Entered: 08/01/2006)

9 of 10

PACER Login:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/26/2007 16:12:44
hs0328 Client Code: eeoc

6/26/2007 4:10 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:Western District of Louisiana - Docket R... https://ecf.lawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?803776483133881-L_9...

Description:
Billable Pages:

Docket Report
6

Search Criteria:
Cost:

2:04-cv-02419-PM-APW 0.48

10 of 10

6/26/2007 4:10 PM

 
 LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?256496703805512-L_3...

CLOSED, MAG-2, TRANSFER
U. S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04-cv-01683-CJB

EEOC v. Noble Drlg US Inc Assigned to: Judge Carl J. Barbier Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 06/16/2004 Date Terminated: 11/19/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Kenneth M. Golski Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 200 Granby St. Suite 739 Norfolk, VA 23510 757-441-3505 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy Eleanor Graham Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New Orleans District Office 1555 Poydras St. Suite 1900 New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 595-2875 Email: nancy.graham@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Noble Drilling (U.S.) Inc.

represented by Terrill W. Boykin Bordenave, Boykin & Ehret 400 Poydras St. Suite 2450 New Orleans, LA 70130 504-527-5450 Email: twb@bbelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kriste Louise Talton

1 of 3

6/26/2007 4:22 PM

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?256496703805512-L_3...

Bordenave, Boykin & Ehret 400 Poydras St. Suite 2450 New Orleans, LA 70130 504-527-5450 Fax: 504-527-5436 Email: klt@bbelaw.com

Date Filed 06/16/2004 06/16/2004 08/16/2004 08/23/2004
08/25/2004
08/25/2004
08/30/2004
09/08/2004
09/29/2004 10/05/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT; 1 summons(es) issued (sek) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
Automatic Referral (Utility Event) to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (sek) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
2 MINUTE ENTRY (8/16/04) Call Docket is set for 11:00 9/1/04 , by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (sek) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
3 MOTION by defendant Noble Drlg US Inc to dismiss for improper venue or alternatively to transfer venue to USDC SO Dist of TX referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. to be heard before Mag Judge at 11:00 9/8/04 (ca) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
4 MINUTE ENTRY (8/24/04) a preliminary conference is scheduled at 2:00 9/7/04 before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr., to discuss scheduling & select pre-trial & trial dates by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. (ca) (Entered: 08/25/2004)
5 MINUTE ENTRY (8/24/04) a responsive mtn has now been filed on behalf of dft; ORDERED that this matter is removed from the court's call dkt set on 9/1/04 & counsel for pla need not appear by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (ca) (Entered: 08/25/2004)
6 Motion by plaintiff EEOC and ORDER re-scheduling dft's motion to dismiss for improper venue or alternatively to transfer venue to USDC SO Dist of TX [3-1] to 9:30 on 10/6/04; w/pla's opposition due on 9/29/04, by Judge Carl J. Barbier Date Signed: 8/31/04 (sek) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
7 MINUTE ENTRY (9/7/04) A Preliminary Conference was held 2:00 9/7/04 ; counsel advised the Court that all parties do not consent to proceed bfr a Mag Judge pursuant to 28:636(c); the presiding Dist Judge is notified so that he may schedule a conf to set pre-trial & trial dates on his calendar; initial disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1) must be exchanged no later than 10/7/04, by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. (sek) (Entered: 09/08/2004)
8 Memo in opposition by plaintiff EEOC to motion to dismiss for improper venue or alternatively to transfer venue to USDC SO Dist of TX [3-1] filed by defendant Noble Drlg US Inc (sek) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
10 Motion by defendant Noble Drlg US Inc and ORDER for leave to file reply brief in response to pla's memo of opp to dft's mtn to dism , by Judge Carl J. Barbier Date Signed: 10/12/04 (sek) (Entered: 10/13/2004)

2 of 3

6/26/2007 4:22 PM

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?256496703805512-L_3...

10/12/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004 11/19/2004

9 MINUTE ENTRY (9/29/04) Ordere terminating case referral to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson Jr. [3-1] , by Judge Carl J. Barbier (sek) (Entered: 10/12/2004)
11 Reply by defendant Noble Drlg US Inc to pla's response to dft's motion to dismiss for improper venue or alternatively to transfer venue to USDC SO Dist of TX [3-1] (sek) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
12 Motion by defendant Noble Drlg US Inc and ORDER to supplement its mtn to dism for improper venue or alternatively to transfer venue with the declaration of Joe Knight by Judge Carl J. Barbier Date Signed: 10/21/04 (plh) (Entered: 10/21/2004)
13 ORDER & REASONS granting dft's motion to dismiss for improper venue or alternatively to transfer venue [3-1] & case is transferred to the Western Dist of LA, by Carl J. Barbier Date Signed: 11/18/04 (CLOSED) (sek) (Entered: 11/19/2004)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/26/2007 16:25:00

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

eeoc 2:04-cv-01683-CJB 0.16

3 of 3

6/26/2007 4:22 PM