Case 3:01-cv-00619 Document 70 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 1 of 14

G\~ ~ MTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CbURT i 'll ri}bI{ THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

SEP 2 3 2003

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY }

COMMISSION,

}

}

Plaintiff,

}

}

NICOLLE BRENNAN GAFFNEY,

}

NICOLE CLEVELAND, ROBYN PURVIS }

MCGEHEE, and LISA RAMIREZ

}

THORNTON,

}

}

Intervenors,

}

v.

}

}

HOOTERS ARLINGTON VENTURE I.

}

a Texas Partnership; TWI IV Inc.; TEXAS

}

WINGS INC. d/b/a HOOTERS

}

RESTAURANT

}

}

Defendants.

}

---------------------------------}

• ~y
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-01CV0619-K

CONSENT DECREE

THIS CONSENT DECREE is made and entered into by and among the Plaintiff, Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), the Defendants, Hooters Arlington Venture I,

a Texas Partnership, TWI IV Inc., Texas Wings Inc. d/b/a Hooters Restaurant ("TWI"), and the

Intervenors, Nicolle Brennan Gaffney, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis McGeHee and Lisa

Ramirez Thornton ("Intervenors"), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Texas, Dallas Division, with regard to the EEOC's Complaint filed on March 30, 2001 ("EEOC

Complaint"), in Civil Action No. 3-01CV-0619-P, and Intervenor's Complaint filed June 27,

2001. These Complaints were based upon Charge of Discrimination Numbers 310980973,

CONSENT DECREE

[C :\jbg\gfdocs\063 7]

1

Case 3:01-cv-00619 Document 70 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 2 of 14

310980974,310980972 and 310980971 filed by Nicolle Brennan Gaffney, Nicole Cleveland,

Robyn Purvis McGeHee and Lisa Ramirez Thornton, respectively, against TWI. The above-referenced Complaints allege that TWI engaged in unlawful employment
practices at its Arlington, Texas restaurant, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a)(1) and Section

704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(3)a. TWI filed its Answer to the EEOC Complaint and

the Complaint of the Intervenors, denying the allegations contained in each Complaint.

EEOC, TWI and the Intervenors agree to compromise the differences embodied in the

Complaints, and intend that the terms and conditions of the compromise be set forth in this

Consent Decree ("Consent Decree"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth

herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows, the Court finds appropriate, and therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. This Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in EEOC Charge Nos. 310980973,

310980974, 310980972 and 310980971. This Decree further resolves all issues in the

Complaints filed by the EEOC and the Intervenors in this civil action. The EEOC and the Intervenors waive further claims and/or litigation on all issues raised in the above-referenced charges and Complaints. The EEOC does not waive processing charges other than the charges of

discrimination specifically referenced above.

2. The parties agree that this Consent Decree does not constitute an admission by

TWI of any violation of Title VII, or any other state law claims.

3. TWI maintains that it has and will continue to conduct all employment practices

CONSENT DECREE

[C:\jbg\gfdocs\0637]

2

Case 3:01-cv-00619 Document 70 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 3 of 14

at its Arlington, Texas facility in a manner which does not subject any employee to

discrimination under Title VII.

Scope of Consent Decree

4. The duration of this Consent Decree shall be two (2) years from the date of entry

of the Consent Decree. During that time, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and

the Parties for purposes of enforcing compliance with the Consent Decree relating to TWI's

Arlington, Texas facility, including such orders as may be required to effectuate its purposes.

General Provisions

5. TWI and its officers, agents, management, including supervisory employees on

any level, successors and assigns, and all those in active concert or participation with them, or

any of them, agree to continue to refrain from: (I) discriminating against any employee on the basis of sex; (ii) engaging in or being a party to any action, policy or practice that is intended to

or is known to them to have the effect of harassing or intimidating any employee on the basis of

gender; and/or (iii) creating, facilitating or permitting the existence of a work environment at its

Arlington, Texas facility that is hostile to its employees.

6. TWI and its officers, agents, management, including supervisory employees on

any level, successors and assigns, and all those in active concert or participation with them, or

any of them, agree to continue to refrain from engaging in, implementing or permitting any

action, policy or practice with the purpose of retaliating against any current or former employee

ofTWI at its Arlington, Texas facility because he or she opposed any practice of sex

discrimination, sexual harassment or sex-based harassment made unlawful under Title VII; filed

a Charge of Discrimination alleging any such practice; testified or participated in any manner in

CONSENT DECREE

[C:\jbg\gfdocs\0637]

3

Case 3:01-cv-00619 Document 70 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 4 of 14
any investigation (including, without limitation, any internal investigation undertaken by TWI), proceeding, or hearing in connection with this case and/or relating to any claim of sex discrimination, sexual harassment or sex-based harassment; was identified as a possible witness in this action; asserted any rights under this Consent Decree; or sought and/or received any monetary and/or non-monetary relief in accordance with this Consent Decree.
Non-Monetary Relief 7. TWI affirms the following "Statement of Zero-Tolerance Policy and Equality Objectives": TWI is firmly committed to maintaining a zero-tolerance policy concerning sexual harassment, sex-based harassment and retaliation against individuals - both women and men - who report harassment in the company's workplace; to swiftly and firmly responding to any acts of sexual or sex-based harassment or retaliation of which the company becomes aware; to maintaining a disciplinary system that is designed to strongly deter future acts of sexual or sex-based harassment or retaliation; and to continuing to actively monitor its workplace in order to ensure tolerance, respect and dignity for all people.
Specific Non-Monetary Relief 8. In order to effectuate the objectives embodied in TWI's Statement of ZeroTolerance Policy and Equality Objectives and this Consent Decree and to the extent such policies are not already in place, TWI shall make whatever specific modifications are necessary to its existing policies, procedures and practices in order to ensure that the following policies, procedures and practices at its Arlington, Texas facility are implemented. Further, the parties agree that this Consent Decree will be administered in a manner consistent with federal labor and employment discrimination laws.

CONSENT DECREE

[C :\jbg\gfdocs\063 7]

4

Case 3:01-cv-00619 Document 70 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 5 of 14

(a) Sexual Harassment Policy.

To the extent that TWI's policies do not already fully encompass the terms of this

Consent Decree, TWI agrees that it shall revise its sexual harassment policy in order to:

(I) provide a description of sexual harassment; (ii) include strong non-retaliation

language; (iii) provide that complaints of sexual harassment, sex-based harassment and/or

retaliation will be accepted by TWI in writing and orally.

(b) Complaint Procedures.

(I)To the extent that TWI's policies do not already fully encompass the terms of

this Consent Decree, TWI agrees that it shall revise its complaint procedure as necessary

in order to ensure that it is designed to encourage employees to come forward with

complaints about violation of its sexual harassment policy. As part of this policy, TWI

agrees that it shall provide its employees with convenient, confidential and reliable

mechanisms for reporting incidents of sexual harassment, sex-based harassment and

retaliation. TWI agrees that it shall designate at least two employees or representatives

from the department charged with investigating such issues as a person who may be

contacted, and his or her title, responsibilities, work locations and telephone numbers

shall be routinely and continuously posted. Also as part of its procedure, TWI agrees that

it take seriously anonymous complaints received and investigate any anonymous

complaint in a manner consistent with its policies.

(ii) To the extent that TWI's policies do not already fully encompass the terms of

this Consent Decree, TWI agrees that it shall revise its policies to enable complaining

parties to be interviewed by TWI about their complaints in such a manner that permits the

CONSENT DECREE

[C:\jbg\gfdocs\0637]

5

Case 3:01-cv-00619 Document 70 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 6 of 14

complaining party, at such party's election, to remain inconspicuous to all ofthe

employees in the restaurant. TWI agrees that its complaint procedure does not and shall

not impose upon individuals seeking to make a complaint alleging sexual harassment,

sex-based harassment and/or retaliation any requirements that are more burdensome than

are imposed upon individuals who make other complaints of comparable gravity.

(iii) To the extent that TWI's policies do not already fully encompass the terms of

this Consent Decree, TWI agrees that it shall revise its complaint handling and

disciplinary procedures at its Arlington, Texas facility to ensure that all complaints of

sexual harassment, sex-based harassment and/or retaliation are investigated and addressed

promptly. Specifically, TWI agrees that it shall make best efforts to investigate all

complaints of sexual harassment, sex-based harassment and/or retaliation promptly and to

complete investigations as soon as possible. TWI will further make best efforts to prepare

its written findings of the results of each investigation and the remedial actions proposed

or taken, if any, within seven (7) days after completion of the investigation, and shall

thereupon promptly communicate to the complaining party the results of the investigation

and the remedial actions taken or proposed, if any.

(iv) TWI agrees that it shall make best efforts to ensure that appropriate remedial

action is taken to resolve complaints and to avoid the occurrence of incidents of sexual

harassment, sex-based harassment and/or retaliation, up to an including termination. TWI

specifically agrees that its complaint procedure includes the power, in TWI's sole

discretion, to order, during the pendency of any investigation, the immediate transfer of

persons accused of having violated TWI's sexual harassment policy or of persons who

CONSENT DECREE

[C:\jbg\gfdocs\0637]

6

Case 3:01-cv-00619 Document 70 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 7 of 14

claim to have been victims of such violations, as well as the power to order the permanent

transfer, serious discipline or termination of employees found to have violated such

policy, and, upon the request of the complaining party, the permanent transfer of any

complaining party who is found to have been the victim ofa violation of TWI's sexual

harassment policy.

© Policies Designed to Promote Supervisor/Accountability.

(I) To the extent that TWI's policies do not already fully encompass the terms of

this Consent Decree, TWI agrees that it shall impose substantial discipline - up to and

including termination, suspension with or without payor demotion - upon any

supervisor, manager, assistant manager or person with any supervisory authority -- who

engages in sexual harassment or sex-based harassment or permits any such conduct to

occur in his or her work area or among employees under his or her supervision, or who

retaliates against any person who complains or participates in any investigation or

proceeding concerning any such conduct. To the extent that TWI's policies do not already

fully encompass the terms of this Consent Decree, TWI will communicate this policy to

all of its supervisors and managers within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this

Consent Decree.

(ii) TWI agrees that it shall continue to advise all managers and supervisors of

their duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure employees' compliance with the

company's sexual harassment policy, and to report any incidents and/or complaints of

sexual harassment, sex-based harassment and/or retaliation of which they become aware

to the persons charged with handling such complaints.

CONSENT DECREE

[C:\jbg\gfdocs\0637]

7

Case 3:01-cv-00619 Document 70 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 8 of 14

(d) Sexual Harassment Trainin2 (I) To the extent that TWI's policies do not already fully encompass the terms of
this Consent Decree, TWI agrees that it shall provide annual discrimination training to all supervisory employees; mandatory discrimination training to all new employees during

employee orientation including a training video which explains TWI's discrimination policy; mandatory discrimination training to all senior management officials; and discrimination training to all persons charged with the handling of complaints of sexual

harassment, sex-based harassment and/or retaliation related thereto within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Consent Decree.
(ii) The orientation training shall inform employees of the complaint procedure for

those individuals who believe they have been sexually harassed or otherwise experienced sex-based discrimination. Further, the training for supervisors and managers shall be at

least two (2) hours in length and shall advise all supervisors and managers of the consequences of violating Title VII and of the importance of working in an environment free of sexual harassment.
(iii) TWI agrees that it shall require a senior management official to introduce all discrimination training to supervisory employees to communicate TWI's commitment to

its Statement of Zero-Tolerance Policy and Equality Objectives.

Postin2 & Notice Requirements 9. Within two (2) weeks after entry of this Consent Decree, TWI shall post a notice

(attached to this Consent Decree as Exhibit "A") in prominent and conspicuous locations throughout its Arlington, Texas facility.

CONSENT DECREE

[C:\jbg\gfdocs\0637]

8

Case 3:01-cv-00619 Document 70 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 9 of 14

10. The notice shall inform employees where to report violations of TWI's sexual

harassment policy and the title of the designated company official to whom they should report

said violations. The notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Consent Decree. In the

event that the persons and/or departments to whom individuals should make complaints alleging

sexual harassment, sex-based harassment and/or retaliation change during the term of the

Consent Decree such that the information contained in the notice is no longer accurate, TWI shall

immediately prepare and post a revised notice that contains the correct information. TWI shall

promptly thereafter forward a copy of the revised notice to the EEOC.

11. TWI agrees to distribute the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to each

employee at its Arlington facility. Within 30 days ofthe date of the entry of this Consent Decree,

a copy of Exhibit "A" will be enclosed in an envelope containing each employee's paycheck.

Also enclosed in each envelope will be a notice stating the following: TWI is committed to

providing a workplace free of discrimination of any kind. Please read the enclosed notice and

keep a copy for your records." New employees at the Arlington facility will be given a copy of

the notice, Exhibit "A," within thirty days ofthe date of their hire. This procedure will remain in

effect during the pendency of the Consent Decree.

Monetary Relief

12. TWI agrees to pay the gross amount of $55,000.00 to resolve all claims for

damages to Nicolle Brennan Gaffuey, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis McGeHee and Lisa

Ramirez Thornton, in and for compensatory damages, inclusive of costs and attorney fees.

Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, EEOC will inform TWI to whom and in

what amount to issue the checks. Within ten (10) days of this notification, TWI will issue the

CONSENT DECREE

[C:\jbg\gfdocs\0637]

9

Case 3:01-cv-00619 Document 70 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 10 of 14
checks and mail them to the attention of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 207 S. Houston, Third Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202, Attention William C. Backhaus. Checks made payable to Nicolle Brennan Gaffney, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis McGeHee and Lisa Ramirez Thornton shall also be made payable to their attorneys. In the event any of the Intervenors fail to pick up or negotiate said checks within 90 days of the date of issuance of said checks, such un-negotiated checks shall be rendered void and payment will be stopped on said checks.
13. Neither the EEOC, Intervenors nor TWI shall contest the validity of this Consent Decree nor the jurisdiction of the federal district court to enforce this Consent Decree and its terms or the right of any party to the Consent Decree to bring an enforcement action upon breach of any term of this Consent Decree by any such party. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to preclude the EEOC from enforcing this Consent Decree in the event that TWI fails to perform the promises and representations contained herein. The EEOC shall be authorized to seek compliance with the Consent Decree through civil action in the United States District Court. The EEOC also reserves the right to seek contempt sanctions for non-payment and noncompliance with this Consent Decree.

14. The parties to this Consent Decree agree to bear their own costs associated with

the litigation of the above-referenced Complaint and the administration of this Consent Decree.

Other General Provisions

15. Neutral Job Reference: Ifrequested, TWI agrees to provide a neutral letter of

reference for Nicolle Brennan Gaffney, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis McGeHee and Lisa

CONSENT DECREE

[C:\jbg\gfdocs\0637]

10

• Case 3:01-cv-00619

Document 70

Filed 09/23/2003

Page 11 of 14

Ramirez Thornton, which includes the dates of their employment, the last position held and the

last salary or commission structure earned.

16. Personnel File Expungement: TWI agrees to remove from all personnel files of

Nicolle Brennan Gaffney, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis McGeHee and Lisa Ramirez

Thornton all documents, entries and references relating to: the facts and circumstances which led

to the filing of the charges of discrimination; the charges themselves; and the complaint filed by

the EEOC and Intervenors in federal court based upon charges.

17. Notices: Except as otherwise provided for in this Consent Decree, all notification,

reports and communications to the parties required under this Consent Decree shall be made in

writing and shall be sufficient if hand-delivered or sent by certified mail return receipt requested

to the following persons: William C. Backhaus, Sr. Trial Attorney, Dallas District Office for the

U.S. E.E.O.C., 207 S. Houston Street, Third Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202 and TWI, by and

CONSENT DECREE

[C: \jbg\gfdocs\063 7]

11

• Case 3:01-cv-00619

Document 70

Filed 09/23/2003

Page 12 of 14

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:

Respectfully Submitted:
ON BEHALF OF THE EEOC:
ROBERT A. CANINO Regional Attorney Oklahoma State Bar No. 011782
SUZANNE M. ANDERSON Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas Bar No. 14009470
Sr. Trial Attorn Texas Bar No. 01493850
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 207 S. Houston Street, 3rd floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 655-3328 (214) 655-3331 (telefax)

1595 N. Central Expressway Richardson, Texas 75080-3590
(972) 231-9924 (972) 231-8636 fax

_ _~~t.~""ar No. 17830100
GESSNER & FLORES, P.C. 16910 Dallas Parkway, Suite 204 Dallas, Texas 75248 (972) 380-6700 (972) 380-6701

CONSENT DECREE

[C:\jbg\gfdocs\0637]

12

• Case 3:01-cv-00619

Document 70

Filed 09/23/2003

Page 13 of 14

ATTACHMENT A

This notice is being posted pursuant to an agreement and Consent Decree entered into between TWI, IV, Inc. d/b/a/Hooters Restaurant Arlington and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, based upon a resolved complaint of sexual discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Sexual harassment of employees or co-workers is a violation of federal law and Company rules. Sexual harassment consists of any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when (1) submission to such conduct is explicitly or implicitly a requirement of the individual's employment; or (2) used as a basis for any employment decision concerning the individual; or (3) has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the individual's work performance; or (4) creates an intimidating or hostile or offensive work environment.
Sexual harassment is a form of misconduct that undermines the integrity ofthe employment relationship. No employee, either male or female, should be subjected to unsolicited and unwelcome sexual conduct, either verbal or physical.

Examples of behavior that may constitute sexual harassment include but are not limited to the following:

*

Hugging, grabbing or any type of unnecessary touching of another person.

*

Making unwelcome sexual advances.

*

Foul or obscene language of a sexual nature, including jokes.

*

Requests for sexual favors whether in exchange for benefits or otherwise.

Company policy and federal law provides that each manager and supervisor has a responsibility to maintain a workplace free of sexual harassment. This duty includes discussing this policy with all employees and assuring them that they are not to endure insulting, degrading, or exploitive sexual treatment.

Specifically, no person, whether management, employees or others, shall make unwanted verbal or physical sexual advances or offensive comments of a sexual nature. Retaliation against individuals who raise concerns of sexual harassment is strictly prohibited. Those who do retaliate will receive discipline up to and including termination.

An employee has the right, and is encouraged to exercise that right to report allegations of

sex discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. An employee may do so by notifying the

Director of Human Resources at

. Employees who do not wish to go to the Director of

Human Resources may instead report to any supervisor or manager with the company. Supervisors

must immediately notify the Director of Human Resources.

CONSENT DECREE

[C:\jbg\gfdocs\0637]

13

Case 3:01-cv-00619 Document 70 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 14 of 14

Any report of sex discrimination will be thoroughly investigated, with appropriate disciplinary action taken against any person(s) found to have engaged in such conduct. TWI reaffirms that it has not and will not retaliate against any person because that person: has provided information or assistance; or participated in any other manner in any investigation or proceeding or charge filed under Title VII; or opposed any practice made unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
An employee, either alternatively or in addition to reporting such an allegation to company officials, may contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the purpose of filing a charge of employment discrimination. The address and telephone number of the nearest EEOC office is 207 South Houston Street, Third Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202; (214) 655-3355.

Date

Company Official

CONSENT DECREE

[C:\jbg\gfdocs\0637]

14

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CURT MAR 3 0 2001
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF EXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
By ____~________

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY }

COMMISSION,

}

}

Plaintiff,

}

}

v.

}

}

HOOTERS ARLINGTON VENTURE I,

}

a Texas Partnership; TWI IV Inc.; TEXAS

}

WINGS INC. d/b/a HOOTERS

}

RESTAURANT,

}

}

}

Defendants.

}

Deputy
CIVIL ACTION NO.
S~OlCV((1)61L9~'
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

-------------------------------}

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to Nicole Brennan, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis, Lisa Ramirez, and other similarly situated individuals, who were subjected to a sexually hostile work environment, sexbased discrimination, retaliation, and/or constructive discharge.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuantto 28 US.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, ("Title VII"), 42 US.C § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 US.C. Sec. 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed

within the jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(a) of Title VII, 42 US.C. § 2000e-5(a). 4. At all relevant times, Defendants, Hooters Arlington Venture I, a Texas Partnership; TWI IV, Inc.; Texas Wings Inc. d/b/a Hooters Restaurant, (hereinafter "Hooters") has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Texas and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Hooters has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 US.c. §2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Nicole Brennan, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis, and Lisa Ramirez filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by the Defendant Hooters. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. During the employment of Nicole Brennan, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis, Lisa Ramirez and the aggrieved individuals, the Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703 (a)(1) of Title VII, 42 US.C. § 2000e-2(a)(I) and Section 704(a) of Title

COMPLAINT

2

VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-3(a) by subjecting Nicole Brennan, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis, Lisa Ramirez and the aggrieved individuals to a sexually hostile work environment, discriminating against them on account of their sex, retaliating against them, and/or constructively discharging them. Specifically, Hooters subjected these aggrieved individuals to a sexually hostile work atmosphere in they were constantly and repeatedly subjected to sexually explicit remarks, sexually aggressive advances and a work atmosphere which was permeated with lewd and sexually offensive behavior. This conduct was so severe as to cause Nicole Brennan, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis, Lisa Ramirez and the aggrieved individuals to great humiliation and emotional distress, resulting in a material alteration of the terms and conditions of their employment. This conduct also resulted in retaliation and/or constructive discharge of two or more of the aggrieved individuals.
8. The result of the foregoing practices has been to deprive Nicole Brennan, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis, Lisa Ramirez and the aggrieved individuals of equal employment opportunities because of their sex.
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 ofNicole Brennan, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis, Lisa Ramirez and the aggrieved individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Hooters, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment

COMPLAINT

3

practice which discriminates on the basis of sex, or which facilitates, condones or encourages sexual harassment.
B. Order the Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities and a non-hostile work environment for females, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order the Defendant to make whole Nicole Brennan, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis, Lisa Ramirez and the aggrieved individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest in amounts to be determined at trial, front pay, pecuniary losses, compensatory damages including out-of-pocket expenses, and other affirmative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects ofits unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful place reinstatement under terms and conditions which will permit Ms. Cleveland, Ms. Purvis, Ms. Ramirez and the aggrieved individuals to work notwithstanding the severe psychological injury which they have suffered.
D. Order the Defendant to make Nicole Brennan, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis, Lisa Ramirez and the aggrieved individuals whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to out of pocket medical expenses and job hunting expenses.
E. Order the Defendant to make Nicole Brennan, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis, Lisa Ramirez and the other aggrieved individuals whole by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to, pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress, anxiety, and loss of enjoyment oflife, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order the Defendant to pay Nicole Brennan, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis, Lisa

COMPLAINT

4

Ramirez and other aggrieved individuals punitive or exemplary damages for its intentional, malicious conduct or reckless indifference described and referenced in paragraph 7 above, in an amount 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 in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Respectfully submitted, GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
~~e_
ROBERT A. CANINO Regional Attorney Oklahoma Bar No. 011782 SUZANNE M. ANDERSON Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas Bar No. 14009470
WILLIAM C. B KRAUS Trial Attorney Texas Bar No. 01493850

COMPLAINT

5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Dallas District Office 207 South Houston, 3rd Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 655-3334 (214) 655-3331 FAX

COMPLAINT

6

 
 •

o

T.o.r\M7\~\. ROBBINS
\~~~~ AVANT

\)\'kONDOS & KONDOS LAW OFFICES

1595 N. CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY

RICHARDSON, TX 75080

(972)231-9924

(972)231-8636 FAX

TRICTCOURT ~, ....,...~.......u:.ftl" DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FILED
JUN 202001

CLERK,

COURT

BY __~~~~____

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION
Plaintiff,
v.
HOOTERS ARLINGTON VENTURE I, a Texas Partnershipi TWI IV Inc.i TEXAS WINGS INC. d/b/a HOOTERS RESTAURANT
Defendants.

* CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-01CV0619-P

* * *

*

*

COM P L A I N T

* *

*

*

*

*

*

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: COME NOW Nicolle Brennan Gaffney (hereinafter "BRENNAN"),
Nicole Cleveland (hereinafter "CLEVELAND"), Robyn Purvis McGehee (hereinafter "PURVIS"), and Lisa Ramirez Thornton(hereinafter "RAMIREZ"). Plaintiffs ln Intevention, by and through their at torneys, alleging the following against HOOTERS ARLINGTON VENTURE I, a Texas Partnershipi TWI IV Inc.i TEXAS WINGS INC. d/b/a HOOTERS RESTAURANT (hereinafter "Defendants").

I. NATURE OF THIS INTERVENTION 1. This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 1

I~

Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. section 2000e, et. seq.). The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked to secure protection of and redress deprivation of rights guaranteed by federal law, which rights provide for injunctive, and state law for other relief for illegal discrimination in employment.
II. PARTIES 1. BRENNAN is an adult female individual and citizen of the United States who currently resides in Tarrant County, Texas. 2. CLEVELAND is an adult female individual and citizen of the United States who currently resides in Dallas County, Texas. 3. PURVIS is an adult female individual and citizen of the United States who currently resides in Tarrant County, Texas. 4. RAMIREZ is an adult female individual and citizen of the United States who currently resides in Dallas County, Texas. 5. Defendants, HOOTERS ARLINGTON VENTURE I, a Texas Partnership; TWI IV Inc.; TEXAS WINGS INC. d/b/a HOOTERS RESTAURANT, were employers in the State of Texas at the time the alleged acts of discrimination occurred. Defendants have been, and is now, doing business in the State of Texas and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. Defendants have continuously been engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of section 701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 2000(e), (b), (g), and (h) 6. Defendants may be served through their attorney, JOHN B.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 2

GESSNER, at Gessner & Flores, 16910 Dallas Parkway, Suite 204, Dallas, Texas 75248.
III. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 1. More than 30 days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, BRENNAN, CLEVELAND, PURVIS, and RAMIREZ filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter EEOC) alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND CAUSES OF ACTION ~ FACTS: 1. BRENNAN, CLEVELAND, PURVIS, and RAMIREZ incorporate all the foregoing allegations in Paragraphs I through III by reference. Additionally, Intervenors concur with paragraphs 1 thru 10 and the prayers for relief included in the EEOC's Original Complaint on file with the Court. 2. The allegations contained in all of the paragraphs of the EEOC's Original Complaint are re-urged for all purposes and incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if set forth verbatim. Intervenors further show as follows: ~ NICOLLE BRENNAN GAFFNEY: 1. Nicolle BRENNAN (now Gaffney) was employed as a waitress for Defendants' Hooters Arlington location from approximately July, 1996, until August, 1998.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 3

2. During her period of employment, Defendants engaged ln unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 2000 (e) -2 (a) (1) and section 2000 (e) -3 (a) . 3. During her period of employment, she was subj ected to a sexually hostile work environment which discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. 4. BRENNAN was subj ected to lewd, sexually hostile, illegal remarks and questions by other employees and by members of management. She was asked lewd, sexually hostile questions about the most intimate details of her private life, including (but not limited to) her sexual practices, her choice of undergarments, and her breast size. S. She was also subj ected on a daily or frequent basis to frequent unwelcome, sexually hostile comments made by other employees regarding intimate details of their own sex lives and practices. 6. BRENNAN was also subjected to lewd, sexually hostile written and printed material, including material which was on display in common areas used by all employees at Defendants' Arlington restaurant. 7. The most egregious acts against BRENNAN were committed by Defendants' employee and Assistant Manager, Christopher Uffman (hereinafter "Uffman") Uffman made repeated remarks directly to BRENNAN and to other workers in her presence that were vile, obscene, illegal, and sexually offensive. He also offered favors
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 4

ln the form of "cuts" to BRENNAN upon the condition that she answer his explicit questions about her private life, show him her breasts, or go home with him. 8. Uffman was frequently the member of Defendants' management

team to which BRENNAN reported directly. 9. BRENNAN complained repeatedly to Uffman that his behavior was

unacceptable, unwanted, and offensive. 10. When he continued the harassment, she complained about

Uffman's behavior to other members of Defendants' management team, including shift managers and the general manager of Defendants' Arlington restaurant. 11. Defendants took no action to correct or halt Uffman's

behavior, or the behavior of any other employees, prior to BRENNAN's filing a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 12. BRENNAN suffered great humiliation and emotional distress as

a result of the sexually hostile work environment at Defendants' Arlington restaurant. She suffered further humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the failure of Defendants' employees to take corrective actions to investigate or resolve her complaints of sexual harassment. 13. In approximately July, 1997, BRENNAN increased her complaints

about the sexually hostile work enviornment to Defendants'

management team.

Defendants' employees retaliated against

BRENNAN's complaints by reducing her number of assignments as "head

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 5

waitress", a position which included increased pay and/or tips. Prior to July, 1997, BRENNAN held this position three-to-four days a week. After July, 1997, she held this position zero-to-one day a week. 14. BRENNAN suffered a loss of income as a result of Defendants' retaliation against her. She also suffered a material alteration of the terms and conditions of her employment. ~ NICOLE CLEVELAND: 1. Nicole CLEVELAND was employed as a waitress for Defendants' Hooters Arlington location from approximately May, 1997, until March, 2001. 2. During her period of employment, the Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 2000 (e) -2 (a) (1) and section 2000 (e) -3 (a) . 3. During her period of employment, she was subj ected to a sexually hostile work environment which discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. 4. CLEVELAND was subjected to lewd, sexually hostile, illegal remarks and questions by other employees and by members of management. She was asked lewd, sexually hostile questions about the most intimate details of her private life, including (but not limited to) her sexual practices, her choice of undergarments, and her breast size.
s. She was also subj ected on a daily or frequent basis to
frequent unwelcome, sexually hostile comments made by other
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 6

employees regarding intimate details of their own sex lives and practices. 6. CLEVELAND was also subj ected to lewd, sexually hostile written and printed material, including material which was on display in common areas used by all employees at Defendants' Arlington restaurant. 7. The most egregious acts against CLEVELAND were committed by Defendants' employee and Assistant Manager, Christopher Uffman (hereinafter "Uffman"). Uffman made repeated remarks directly to CLEVELAND and to other workers ln her presence that were vile, obscene, sexually offensive, and illegal. On more than one occasion, Uffman told CLEVELAND he wanted to (have sexual relations with) her. He pointed out other females ln the restaurant (both employees and customers) that sexually aroused him. Uffman also questioned CLEVELAND about her choice of undergarments, and asked her to model undergarments for him. Such remarks were often made in the presence of other employees of Defendants. 8. On at least one occasion, Uffman touched CLEVELAND in a manner that was unwelcome, offensive, inappropriate, and illegal. 9. Uffman was frequently the member of Defendants' management team to which CLEVELAND reported directly. 10. CLEVELAND complained repeatedly to Uffman that his behavior was unacceptable, unwanted, and offensive. 11. When he continued the harassment, she complained about Uffman's behavior to other members of Defendants' management team,
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 7

including shift managers and the general manager of Defendants' Arlington restaurant. 12. Defendants took no action to correct or halt Uffman's behavior, or the behavior of any other employees, prior to CLEVELAND's filing a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 13. CLEVELAND suffered great humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the sexually hostile work environment at Defendants' Arlington restaurant. 14. CLEVELAND suffered further humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the failure of Defendants' employees to take corrective actions to investigate or resolve her complaints of sexual harassment. ~ ROBYN PURVIS MCGEHEE: 1. Robyn PURVIS (now McGehee) was employed as a waitress for Defendants' Hooters Arlington location from approximately October, 1997, until January, 1999. 2. During her period of employment, the Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 2000 (e) -2 (a) (1) and section 2000 (e) -3 (a) . 3. During her period of employment, she was subj ected to a sexually hostile work environment which discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. 4. PURVIS was subjected to lewd, sexually hostile, illegal remarks and questions by other employees and by members of ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 8

management. She was asked lewd, sexually hostile questions about the most intimate details of her private life, including (but not limited to) her sexual practices, her choice of undergarments, and her breast size.
s. She was also subj ected on a daily or frequent basis to
frequent unwelcome, sexually hostile comments made by other employees regarding intimate details of their own sex lives and practices. 6. PURVIS was also subjected to lewd, sexually hostile written and printed material, including material which was on display in common areas used by all employees at Defendants' Arlington restaurant. 7. The most egregious acts against PURVIS were committed by Defendants' employee and Assistant Manager, Christopher Uffman (hereinafter "Uffman") Uffman made repeated remarks directly to PURVIS and to other workers in her presence that were vile, obscene, sexually offensive, and illegal. He also commented frequently on visits he (and other of Defendants' employees, including members of Defendants' management team) made to "gentlemen's clubs". 8. On at least one occasion, Uffman touched PURVIS in a manner that was unwelcome, offensive, inappropriate, and illegal. 9. Uffman was frequently the member of Defendants' management team to which PURVIS reported directly. 10. PURVIS complained to Uffman that his behavior was
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 9

unacceptable, unwanted, and offensive. 11. When he continued the harassment, she complained about Uffman's behavior to other members of Defendants' management team, including shift managers and the general manager of Defendants' Arlington restaurant. 12. To the best of PURVIS' knowledge, Defendants took no action to correct or halt Uffman's behavior, or the behavior of any other employees, prior to PURVIS' filing a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 13. PURVIS suffered great humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the sexually hostile work environment at Defendants' Arlington restaurant. 14. PURVIS suffered further humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the failure of Defendants' employees to take corrective actions to investigate or resolve her complaints of sexual harassment. 15. PURVIS also suffered a material alteration of the terms and conditions of her employment. ~ LISA RAMIREZ THORNTON: 1. Lisa RAMIREZ (now Thornton) was employed as a waitress for Defendants' Hooters Arlington location from approximately November, 1996, until December, 1999. 2. During her period of employment, the Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 2000(e) -2(a) (1) and section 2000(e)-3(a).
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 10

3. During her period of employment, she was subj ected to a sexually hostile work environment which discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. 4. RAMIREZ was subj ected to lewd, sexually hostile, illegal remarks and questions by other employees and by members of management. She was asked lewd, sexually hostile questions about the most intimate details of her private life, including (but not limited to) her sexual practices, her choice of undergarments, and her breast size.
s. She was also subj ected on a daily or frequent basis to
frequent unwelcome, sexually hostile comments made by other employees regarding intimate details of their own sex lives and practices. 6. RAMIREZ was also subjected to lewd, sexually hostile written and printed material, including material which was on display in common areas used by all employees at Defendants' Arlington restaurant. 7. The most egregious acts against RAMIREZ were committed by Defendants' employee and Assistant Manager, Christopher Uffman (hereinafter "Uffman") Uffman made repeated remarks directly to RAMIREZ and to other workers in her presence that were vile, obscene, sexually offensive, and illegal. He also offered favors in the form of "cuts" to RAMIREZ upon the condition that she answer his explicit questions about her private life, show him her breasts, or go home with him.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 11

8. Uffman was frequently the member of Defendants' management team to which RAMIREZ reported directly. 9. RAMIREZ complained repeatedly to Uffman that his behavior was unacceptable, unwanted, and offensive. 10. When Uffman continued the harassment, RAMIREZ complained about Uffman's behavior to other members of Defendants' management team, including shift managers and the general manager of Defendant's Arlington restaurant. 11. Defendants took no action to correct or halt Uffman's behavior, or the behavior of any other employees, prior to RAMIREZ' filing a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 12. RAMIREZ suffered great humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the sexually hostile work environment at Defendants' Arlington restaurant. 13. RAMIREZ suffered further humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the failure of Defendants' employees to take corrective actions to investigate or resolve her complaints of sexual harassment. 14. In approximately July, 1997, RAMIREZ increased her complaints about the sexually hostile work enviornment to Defendants' management team. Defendants' employees retaliated against RAMIREZ' complaints by reducing her number of assignments as "head waitress", a position which included increased pay and/or tips. Prior to July, 1997, RAMIREZ held this position three-to-four days
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 12

a week. After July, 1997, she held this position zero-to-one day a week. 15. RAMIREZ suffered a loss of income as a result of Defendants' retaliation against her. She also suffered a material alteration of the terms and conditions of her employment.
1. Defendants' failure to institute and enforce a policy prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace and its failure to take action for reporting, investigating, and resolving complaints of sexual harassment resulted in the perpetuation of a sexually hostile environment. 2. Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at their restaurant located in Arlington, Texas, in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 2000(e)-2(a) (1) 3. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive BRENNAN, CLEVELAND, PURVIS, and RAMIREZ of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected their status as waitresses at Defendants' Arlington restaurant. 4. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional. 5. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the state and federally protected rights of Intervenors. 6. Defendants are liable because they knew or should have known
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 13

of the sexual harassment being committed by Defendants' employee, Christopher Uffman, and other of Defendants' employees at their Arlington restaurant against Intervenors, BRENNAN, CLEVELAND, PURVIS, and RAMIREZ. 7. Pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, Defendants

are liable for the acts and omissions described as they relate to sexual harassment of Intervenors, as follows: 8. Intervenors, while employed at Defendants' Arlington restaurant were verbally and physically harassed as described above in detail. 9. The harassment described above, including the lewd comments,

grabbing, and touching, amounted to a hostile work environment, negatively affecting Intervenors' ability to function and perform their job duties, for which Defendants are strictly liable. 10. Intervenors met all procedural prerequisites to bringing this

complaint by filing charges of discrimination with the EEOC on February 4, 1998. Further, Intervenors have filed this complaint

in a timely matter.

VI. DAMAGES

As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions as described

above,Intervenors have suffered and seek the following damages:

(1) Lost Wages: Intervenors have suffered lost wages in the past that total an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the court. Intervenors have also suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future.
(2) Mental Anguish and Emotional Distress: Intervenors have endured severe mental anguish and emotional distress in

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 14

the past and will continue to endure mental anguish and emotional distress in the future. (3) Punitive Damages: As a consequence of the foregoing clear and convincing facts and the willful and malicious nature of the wrongs committed against Intervenors, which damaged their persons and their reputations, Intervenors are entitled to exemplary damages. (4) Reasonably attorneys fees for prosecuting this action on behalf of Intervenors. (5) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. (6) Costs of court. By reason of the above and foregoing, Intervenor BRENNAN has been damaged in a sum within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, not to exceed $500,000.00, excluding interest, attorneys fees, exemplary damages, and costs of court, for which Intervenor BRENNAN hereby brings suit. Intervenor CLEVELAND has been damaged in a sum within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, not to exceed $500,000.00, excluding interest, attorneys fees, exemplary damages, and costs of court, for which Intervenor CLEVELAND hereby brings suit. Intervenor PURVIS has been damaged in a sum within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, not to exceed $500,000.00, excluding interest, attorneys fees, exemplary damages, and costs of court, for which Intervenor PURVIS hereby brings suit. Intervenor RAMIREZ has been damaged ln a sum within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, not to exceed $500,000.00, excluding interest, attorneys fees, exemplary damages, and costs of court, for which Intervenor RAMIREZ hereby brings suit.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 15

VII. JURY DEMAND Intervenors demand that this Court empanel a lawful jury to hear this case.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Intervenors respectfully request that this honorable Court advance this case on the docket, order a hearing at the earliest practical date, and upon a hearing: 1. Grant Intervenors a permanent inj unction enj oining Defendants, their agents, successors, employees, and those acting in consort with Defendants, from continuing to violate Intervenors ' civil rights. 2. Issue an order awarding Intervenors back pay, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, fringe benefits, and any other appropriate relief necessary to make the Intervenors whole and compensate them for civil rights violations described above. 3. Award Intervenors front pay, fringe benefits, and other compensation. 4. Award Intervenors punitive damages. 5. Award Intervenors costs of this action, including prejudgement and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees, and such other legal and equitable relief as this Court deems just and proper.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 16

Respectfully submitted,
KONDOS & KONDOS LAW OFFICES
Wil~S
State Bar No. 16987500 Anjel K. Avant State Bar No. 01448470 1595 North Central Expressway Richardson, Texas 75080 (972) 231-9924 Telephone (972) 231-8636 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the

forgoing was served on all counsel

to the

_____ F.R.C.P. 5 on this the__~)~O

day of ____~~~~-+-,~_, 2001.

Willlam E. Robbins Anjel K. Avant

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND JURY DEMAND - 17

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Gaffney, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

2001 WL 1338368 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas
Division.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
Nicolle Brennan GAFFNEY, Nicole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis McGehee, and Lisa Ramirez Thornton, Intervenors, v.
HOOTERS ARLINGTON VENTURE I, a Texas Partnership, TWI IV Inc., and Texas Wings Inc.
d/b/a Hooters Restaurant, Defendants.
No. Civ.A.3:01CV0619–P. | Oct. 16, 2001.
Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SOLIS, J.
*1 Now before the Court for its consideration are: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint in Intervention, filed July 17, 2001 (“Motion to Dismiss”);1

1

Plaintiff EEOC filed its response to Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss on August 3, 2001 and Intervenors

filed their response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

on August 6, 2001. (Intervenors erroneously titled their

responsive brief “Brief in Reply to Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss.” For purposes of accuracy and to ease

confusion, Intervenors’ responsive brief will be referred

to herein as “Intervenors’ Response to Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss.”) Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff

EEOC’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

was filed August 16, 2001. Defendants’ Reply to

Intervenors’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss was filed August 21, 2001.

2. Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff EEOC’s Evidence in Support of Its Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Same, filed August 16, 2001;2

2

The EEOC did not file a responsive brief to this

motion.

3. Defendants’ Objections to Intervenors’ Evidence

in Support of Their Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Same, filed August 21, 2001;3

3

Intervenors did not file a responsive brief to this

motion.

4. Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply, filed September 6, 2001;4

4

Plaintiff EEOC filed Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to

File Sur-response on September 5, 2001, yet failed to

include a certificate of conference as required by Local

Rule 7.1(b). On September 6, 2001, Plaintiff EEOC

filed Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Leave to File

Sur-response to correct the error. Defendants filed their

Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion

for Leave to File Sur-response on September 18, 2001.

Plaintiff EEOC did not file a reply brief. (For purposes

of accuracy and clarity, the Court will refer to

Plaintiff’s motion as “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to

File Surreply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.”)

5. Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to EEOC Complaint, filed July 17, 2001.5

5

The EEOC filed the EEOC’s Response to Defendants’

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer on

August 6, 2001, and Defendants filed Defendants’

Reply to EEOC’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for

Leave to File First Amended Answer on August 21,

2001.

After careful consideration of the Parties’ motions, briefing, and the applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply, DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff EEOC’s Evidence in Support of Its Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Same, DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Objections to Intervenors’ Evidence in Support of Their Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Same, and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to EEOC Complaint.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 30, 2001 Plaintiff Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“the EEOC”) filed its Complaint against Defendants Hooters Arlington Venture I, TWI IV Inc., and Texas Wings Inc. d/b/a Hooters
1

E.E.O.C. v. Gaffney, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

Restaurant (“Defendants”). In the Complaint, the EEOC alleged that Defendants subjected four of its female employees6 to a sexually hostile work environment, that Defendants discriminated against the women on the basis of their gender, and that Defendants unlawfully retaliated against the women and/or constructively discharged the women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. (Compl. ¶ 7.) The women referred to in the EEOC’s Complaint filed their own Complaint against Defendants on June 20, 2001 as intervenors in the original lawsuit. The intervenors (“Intervenors”) accused Defendants of subjecting them to a sexually hostile work environment and discriminating against them on the basis of their gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. (See generally Orig. Compl. in Intervention and Jury Demand.)

6

The four women are: Nicolle Brennan Gaffney, Nicole

Cleveland, Robyn Purvis McGehee, and Lisa Ramirez

Thornton. (Compl.¶ 6.)

On July 17, 2001, Defendants moved to dismiss the Intervenors’ Complaint on the basis of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss.) Specifically, Defendants contend that each of the Intervenors specifically agreed to arbitrate any employment-related disputes, and thus, the case should be dismissed as to all Intervenors. (See generally id.)
In support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Defendants attached as exhibits the arbitration agreements entered into between Defendants and three of the Intervenors. (See Mot. to Dismiss Exs. A–1—A–3.)7 The one-page arbitration agreements are entitled “Texas Wings Inc. dba Hooters Agreement to Arbitrate Employment–Related Disputes” and are signed by Nicolle Brennan Gaffney (signed July 8, 1997) (Id. Ex. A–1), Nicole Cleveland (signed May 15, 1997) (Id. Ex. A–2), and Robin Purvis McGehee (signed October 26, 1997) (Id. Ex. A–3). The agreements basically state that “the employee and the company agree to resolve any claims pursuant to the Company’s rules and procedures for alternative resolution of employment-related disputes.” (Id. Ex. A–1—A–3.)

7

None of the Parties have complied with Local Rules

7.1(i) or 7.2(d) and (e), which describe in detail the

appendix requirements and the requirements for the

table of contents and table of authorities. In the future,

the Court advises counsel for all Parties to consult the

Local Rules of the Court before filing briefing.

*2 With respect to the fourth Intervenor, Lisa Ramirez Thornton (“Ramirez”), Defendants attached her employment application dated November 13, 1996, which states in relevant part: “In order to be considered for

employment by [Defendants], you must agree to the terms and conditions of the Company’s Agreement to Arbitrate Employment–Related Disputes [ ].” (Id. Ex. A–4.) According to the affidavit attached to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the “Company’s Agreement to Arbitrate Employment–Related Disputes” was “in place at the time of [Ms. Ramirez’s] commencement of employment with Defendants.” (Id. Ex. A–4 ¶ 2.) Defendants attached a copy of the “Company’s Agreement to Arbitrate Employment–Related Disputes” to Ms. Ramirez’s employment application. (Id.) It is this document that has generated considerable confusion among the Parties.

Both the EEOC and the Intervenors filed response briefs

to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The EEOC argues in

its brief that the case should not be arbitrated because the

arbitration agreements between Defendants and each of

the Intervenors are invalid and unenforceable because

they are violative of public policy. (See generally EEOC’s

Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss.) The EEOC contends that the

“Company’s

Agreement

to

Arbitrate

Employment–Related Disputes,” a copy of which was

attached to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, does not

provide an adequate forum for the Intervenors, severely

restricts the types and amount of damages the Intervenors

may recover, and gives Defendants complete control over

the selection of the arbitration panel. (Id.) The EEOC

relies primarily on a case decided by the Fourth Circuit

that held the Hooters arbitration rules invalid and

unenforceable based on the unfair provisions contained

therein. (See id. citing Hooters of America, Inc. v. Phillips,

173 F.2d 933 (4 th Cir.1999).) The EEOC spends twenty

pages of briefing discussing and analyzing various

provisions contained in the “Company’s Agreement to

Arbitrate Employment–Related Disputes” and asks the

Court to find the agreements void and unenforceable

based on their alleged unfairness and one-sidedness. (Id.)

The Intervenors’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss contains arguments similar to those contained in the EEOC’s brief as well as additional arguments based on state law contract principles. (See generally Intervenors’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss.) Like the EEOC, the Intervenors focus primarily on the language contained in the “Company’s Agreement to Arbitrate Employment–Related Disputes.” (Id.)

Interestingly, Defendants strenuously argue in their reply brief that the arbitration rules referred to and relied upon by the EEOC—and attached as an exhibit to Defendants’ own brief—“do not exist, have never been utilized by the Defendants in this case and would not apply to any arbitration filed by the Intervenors.” (Defs .’ Reply to Pl. EEOC’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 2.) They explain that the “Company’s Agreement to Arbitrate Employment–Related Disputes” were rules “suggested by the franchiser of Defendants but were never utilized by Defendants and do not apply to any arbitration filed by
2

E.E.O.C. v. Gaffney, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

any of the Intervenors.” (Id.) Instead, Defendants point

out, the ADR procedures followed by Defendants are

contained in Hooters’ handbook, the relevant provision of

which is attached to the reply brief as Exhibit A–1.

Exhibit A–1 is described as a copy of Hooters’ ADR

procedures and states that the employee agrees that all

employment-related disputes “will be submitted to and

resolved through binding arbitration administered by the

American

Arbitration

Association

or

J.A.M.S./ENDISPUTE (both hereafter referred to as the

“Association”), as selected by Hooters ... The

Association’s ‘Rules for Employee Dispute Resolution’

will be used in any arbitration proceeding. A copy of

these rules is available from the Director of Human

Resources.” (Id. Ex. A–1 at 10–11.) Upon reading

Defendants’ reply brief, it became clear to the Court—and

apparently to the EEOC and Intervenors as well—that the

Parties are confused or in disagreement as to precisely

what document(s) constitute the arbitration agreements

governing these disputes.

*3 Due to the confusing nature of the facts presented in Defendants’ reply brief, the EEOC filed a motion for leave to file a surreply and requested a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure to enable the Parties to conduct written discovery and take depositions concerning the facts of this case. (Pl.’s Am. Mot. for Leave to File Sure-response at 1–2.) Defendants responded to the motion for leave to file the surreply by arguing—without presenting any legal authority whatsoever—that the EEOC is not a proper party to ask for the relief sought and that the reply brief did not raise new issues. (See generally Defs.’ Resp. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Am. Mot. for Leave to File Sur-response.)

II. MOTION TO FILE SURREPLY AND MOTION TO DISMISS
When confronted with the question of arbitrability, a district court must determine, as a threshold matter, whether the grievance before it is subject to arbitration. See Folse v. Richard Wolf Med. Instruments Corp., 56 F.3d 603, 605 (5 th Cir.1995); Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int’l Union Local 4–227 v. Phillips 66 Co., 976 F.2d 277, 278 (5 th Cir.1992). This determination mandates two specific inquiries. The Court first asks whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate; if so, the Court then asks whether the dispute in question falls within the scope of the agreement. See Webb v. Investacorp, Inc., 89 F.3d 252, 257–58 (5 th Cir.1996).
In this case, the Court cannot determine based on the record before it whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate. In this case, the Parties have failed to identify for the Court the precise arbitration agreement at issue

between the Parties. Based on the Parties’ briefing, it is clear that the EEOC and Intervenors have been under the impression that the arbitration agreement between the Parties was the document attached to Defendants’ motion entitled “Company’s Agreement to Arbitrate Employment–Related Disputes.” Defendants’ revelation in their reply brief that the terms of the arbitration agreement between the Parties are not contained in the document attached to their motion, but rather are contained in the J.A.M.S./ENDISPUTE’s or the American Arbitration Association’s “Rules for Employee Dispute Resolution” leaves the Court with the task of determining precisely which document constitutes the arbitration agreement. The issue of which document constitutes the arbitration agreement has not been adequately briefed by the Parties. Before the Court can determine the validity of the arbitration agreement—an issue that has been briefed by the Parties, to some extent—the Court must be able to make a well-reasoned decision based on competent evidence as to what constitutes the arbitration agreement and its terms.
Because the briefing did not reveal there was a dispute about what constitutes the arbitration agreement and its terms until Defendants filed their reply brief, the Court hereby GRANTS in part the EEOC’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and considers the surreply at this time. The Court DENIES the EEOC’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss to the extent the EEOC seeks a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies to summary judgment motions, not motions to dismiss. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f).
*4 As stated supra, the Parties—and the Court—need additional information before the Court can come to a fair and well-reasoned determination as to which arbitration agreement(s) to analyze for validity. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was filed, and the Parties’ briefing was filed, before any formal discovery had taken place. (EEOC’s Surreply to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 4.) Because this case is still in its infancy, and because the Parties and the Court need additional information, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff EEOC’s Evidence in Support of Its Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Same, and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Objections to Intervenors’ Evidence in Support of Their Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Same.
3

E.E.O.C. v. Gaffney, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)
III. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER TO EEOC COMPLAINT
Finally, the Court considers Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer to the EEOC Complaint. Defendants seek to raise additional defenses in their answer to the EEOC Complaint in light of the issues raised in the Original Complaint in Intervention. (Defs.’ Mot. for Leave to File Am. Answer to EEOC Compl. at 2.) Specifically, Defendants seek to add new paragraphs 18–20, which raise defenses relating to the arbitration issues raised in the motion to dismiss briefing. (Id.; See Defs.’ First Am. Answer to the EEOC’s Orig. Compl. ¶¶ 18–20.) The EEOC responds to this motion by reiterating its argument that the arbitration agreements are contrary to public policy and Title VII, and stress that the motion to amend to add these defenses should be denied. (See generally Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. for Leave to File First Am. Answer.)
Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend a pleading “shall freely be granted when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Unless there exists a substantial reason for denying leave to amend, the district court should permit the filing of a proposed amendment. See Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 598 (5 th Cir.1981). Nevertheless, the parties’ ability to amend their pleadings is by no means unlimited. See In re Southmark, 88 F.3d 311, 315 (5 th Cir.1996). Thus, leave to amend may be appropriately denied if the suggested amendment would cause undue delay or prejudice to the non-movant, or if it is motivated by bad faith or dilatory motives on the part of the movant. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Furthermore, in deciding upon a motion for leave to amend, the Court may also consider whether the amendment would compromise the goals of judicial economy and expedient resolution of disputes. See Dussouy, 660 F.2d at 598. This court exercises its discretion by determining the most efficient means for

ensuring the fair administration of justice while controlling the court’s own docket.
*5 Allowing Defendants to add these additional defenses at this early stage of the litigation will not cause any undue delay or prejudice to the EEOC. It should come as no surprise to the EEOC that Defendants seek to assert these arbitration-based defenses since both the EEOC and Defendants have spent hours briefing the issue. Further, the Court does not believe—and the EEOC does not allege—that the motion is motivated by bad faith or dilatory motives on the part of Defendants. Finally, allowing the amendment will not compromise the goals of judicial economy and expedient resolution of disputes. Defendants correctly point out in their reply brief that a refusal to allow the amendment based on the EEOC’s reasoning would amount to a preliminary substantive ruling on the arbitration issues that were raised in the Motion to Dismiss. (Defs.’ Reply to EEOC’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. for Leave to File Am. Answer at 2.) Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to the EEOC Complaint.
THEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply, DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff EEOC’s Evidence in Support of Its Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Same, DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Objections to Intervenors’ Evidence in Support of Their Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to EEOC Complaint.
	  

4

 
 District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 1 of 11

CLOSED, JURY, STICKNEY
U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (Dallas) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:01-cv-00619

EEOC, et al v. Hooters Arlington, et al Assigned to: Judge Ed Kinkeade Demand: $0 Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Date Filed: 03/30/2001 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by William C Backhaus Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Dallas District Office 207 S Houston 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 214/253-2742 Fax: 214/253-2749 FAX Email: william.backhaus@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert A Canino, Jr Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Dallas District Office 207 S Houston 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 214/253-2750 Email: robert.canino@eeoc.gov
Suzanne M Anderson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Dallas District Office 207 S Houston 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 214/253-2740 Fax: 214/253-2749 FAX Email: suzanne.anderson@eeoc.gov

V. Intervenor Plaintiff

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?707980309284645-L_923_0-1

7/5/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report Nicolle B Gaffney
Intervenor Plaintiff Nicole Cleveland
Intervenor Plaintiff Robyn P McGehee
Intervenor Plaintiff Lisa R Thornton
V. Defendant Hooters Arlington Venture I a Texas Partnership

Page 2 of 11
represented by John M Schutza Chamblee & Ryan 2777 N Stemmons Freeway Suite 1157 Dallas, TX 75207 214/905-2003 Email: jschutza@chambleeryan.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William E Robbins Kondos & Kondos 1595 N Central Expwy Richardson, TX 75080 972/231-9924 Fax: 972/231-8636 FAX
represented by John M Schutza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William E Robbins (See above for address)
represented by John M Schutza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William E Robbins (See above for address)
represented by John M Schutza (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William E Robbins (See above for address)
represented by John B Gessner Gessner & Flores

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?707980309284645-L_923_0-1

7/5/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report
Defendant TWI IV Inc
Defendant Texas Wings Inc doing business as Hooters Restaurant Provider Courtenay Lee Bass
Intervenor Defendant Hooters Arlington Venture I
Intervenor Defendant TWI IV Inc
Intervenor Defendant Texas Wings Inc doing business as Hooters Restaurant

Page 3 of 11
16910 Dallas Parkway Suite 204 Dallas, TX 75248 972/380-6700 Fax: 972/380-6701 FAX LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John B Gessner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John B Gessner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Courtenay Lee Bass Gilbert Mediation Group 3131 McKinney Ave Suite 125 Dallas, TX 75204 214/303-4500 Fax: 214/303-4501 Email: clbmediate@aol.com PRO SE
represented by John B Gessner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John B Gessner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John B Gessner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?707980309284645-L_923_0-1

7/5/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 4 of 11

Date Filed 03/30/2001 03/30/2001 03/30/2001 03/30/2001 03/30/2001 04/18/2001 04/18/2001 04/18/2001 04/19/2001
05/04/2001
05/10/2001 05/10/2001 05/23/2001 06/20/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; No fee government. (lmr) (Entered: 03/30/2001)

2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS by plaintiff Equal Employment Opp. (3) (lmr) (Entered: 03/30/2001)

3 SUMMONS(ES) issued for defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc through John Crowder. (1) (issued 1) (lmr) Modified on 04/02/2001 (Entered: 03/30/2001)

1 DEMAND for jury trial by plaintiff Equal Employment Opp. (lmr) (Entered: 03/30/2001)

PRELIMINARY ASSIGNMENT TO Magistrate Judge Paul Stickney. (lmr) (Entered: 03/30/2001)

4 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc (Attorney John B Gessner). (4) (lmr) Modified on 04/23/2001 (Entered: 04/19/2001)

5 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS by defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc. (2) (lmr) Modified on 04/23/2001 (Entered: 04/19/2001)

4 DEMAND for jury trial by defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc. (2) (not imaged) (lmr) Modified on 04/23/2001 (Entered: 04/19/2001)

6 ORDER REQUIRING ATTORNEY CONFERENCE AND PROPOSAL for Contents of Scheduling Order. Proposed scheduling order due 5/23/01 (signed by Judge Solis) Copies to counsel: 04/20/01 Page(s): 2 (lmr) Modified on 04/23/2001 (Entered: 04/20/2001)

7 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc through John Crowder on 4/22/01 located 1086 Audelia/Suite 9464/Dallas, TX..Answer due on 5/14/01 for Texas Wings Inc, for TWI IV Inc, for Hooters Arlington. (1) (lmr) (Entered: 05/04/2001)

8 MOTION by movant Nicolle B Gaffney, movant Nicole Cleveland, movant Robyn P McGehee, movant Lisa R Thornton to intervene . (5) (lmr) (Entered: 05/11/2001)

9 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM by movant Nicolle B Gaffney, movant Nicole Cleveland, movant Robyn P McGehee, movant Lisa R Thornton in support of [8-1] motion to intervene.(4) (lmr) (Entered: 05/11/2001)

10 JOINT PROPOSAL FOR CONTENTS of scheduling and discovery order by defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc, plaintiff EEOC. (4) (lmr) (Entered: 05/24/2001)

11 ORDER granting [8-1] motion to intervene. (see order for specifics) (Signed by Judge Jorge A. Solis) Copies to counsel: 06/21/01 Page(s) 2 (lmr) (Entered: 06/21/2001)

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?707980309284645-L_923_0-1

7/5/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 5 of 11

06/20/2001 06/20/2001 06/21/2001 07/17/2001 07/17/2001 07/17/2001 07/17/2001 07/24/2001 07/27/2001
08/03/2001 08/03/2001 08/06/2001 08/06/2001

12 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by intervenors, Nichole Brennan Gaffney, Nichole Cleveland, Robyn Purvis McGehee and Lisa Ramirez Thornton against defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc. (15+) (lmr) (Entered: 06/25/2001)
12 DEMAND for jury trial by intervenor-plaintiff Nicolle B Gaffney, intervenor-plaintiff Nicole Cleveland, intervenor-plaintiff Robyn P McGehee, intervenor-plaintiff Lisa R Thornton. (15+) (lmr) (Entered: 06/25/2001)
13 ORDER REQUIRING ATTORNEY CONFERENCE AND PROPOSAL for Contents of Scheduling Order. Proposed scheduling order due 7/24/01. ( signed by Judge Solis) Copies to counsel: 06/22/01 Page(s): 2 (lmr) (Entered: 06/22/2001)
14 MOTION by defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc to dismiss . (15+) (exhibits not imaged) (lmr) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
14 ORIGINAL ANSWER by defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc to [12-1] intervenor complaint. (15+) (lmr) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
15 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM by defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc in support of [14-1] motion to dismiss. (5) (lmr) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
16 MOTION by defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc to amend [4-1] answer . (8) (exhibits not imaged) (lmr) (Entered: 07/18/2001)
17 JOINT PROPOSAL FOR CONTENTS of scheduling and discovery order by defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc, plaintiff EEOC. (3) (lmr) (Entered: 07/24/2001)
18 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Docket call set for 9:00 10/8/02 ; Pretrial conference for 9:30 9/20/02 ; Joining of Parties on 9/21/01 ; Amending of Pleadings on 9/15/01 ; Discovery cutoff 5/15/02 ; Deadline for filing of dispositive motions 6/14/02 ; Proposed pretrial order due 9/13/02 ; Pretrial materials due on 9/30/02. (Signed by Judge Jorge A. Solis ) Copies to counsel: 07/30/01 Page(s): 3 (lmr) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
19 RESPONSE by plaintiff EEOC to [14-1] motion to dismiss. (15+) (exhibits not imaged) (lmr) (Entered: 08/06/2001)
20 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff EEOC in support of [19-1] motion response. (15+) (exhibits not imaged) (lmr) (Entered: 08/06/2001)
21 RESPONSE by plaintiff EEOC to [16-1] motion to amend [4-1] answer. (3) (lmr) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
22 REPLY/RESPONSE by intervenor-plaintiff Nicolle B Gaffney, intervenor-plaintiff Nicole Cleveland, intervenor-plaintiff Robyn P

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?707980309284645-L_923_0-1

7/5/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 6 of 11

08/06/2001 08/16/2001 08/16/2001 08/16/2001 08/21/2001
08/21/2001 08/21/2001 09/05/2001 09/06/2001
09/18/2001 10/16/2001

McGehee, intervenor-plaintiff Lisa R Thornton to [14-1] motion to dismiss. (15+) (exhibits not imaged) (lmr) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
23 REPLY BRIEF/MEMORANDUM by intervenor-plaintiff Nicolle B Gaffney, intervenor-plaintiff Nicole Cleveland, intervenor-plaintiff Robyn P McGehee, intervenor-plaintiff Lisa R Thornton in support of [22-1] motion response. (15+) (lmr) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
24 REPLY by defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc. to response to [14-1] motion to dismiss. (15+)(Exhibits not imaged.) (jaw) (Entered: 08/17/2001)
25 RESPONSE by defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc. in opposition to plaintiff EEOC's evidence in support of its response to defendants' motion to dismiss. (4) (jaw) (Entered: 08/17/2001)
25 MOTION with memorandum in support by defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc to strike plaintiff EEOC's evidence in support of its response to defendants' motion to dismiss . (4) (jaw) (Entered: 08/17/2001)
26 RESPONSE by defendant Texas Wings Inc, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Hooters Arlington in objections/opposition to intervenors' evidence in support of their response to defendants' motion to dismiss and motion to strike. (12) (lmr) Modified on 10/18/2001 (Entered: 08/22/2001)
27 REPLY by defendant Texas Wings Inc, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Hooters Arlington to response to [16-1] motion to amend [4-1] answer. (3) (lmr) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
28 REPLY by defendant Texas Wings Inc, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Hooters Arlington to interveors'response to [14-1] motion to dismiss. (11) (lmr) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
29 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for leave to file sur-response and brief in opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss . (7) (lmr) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
30 AMENDED MOTION for leave to file sur-response and brief in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss by plaintiff EEOC referring to [29-1] motion for leave to file sur-response and brief in opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (10)(attachments not imaged) (lmr) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
31 RESPONSE by defendant Texas Wings Inc, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Hooters Arlington in opposition to [30-1] amended motion for leave to file sur-response and brief in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. (6) (lmr) Modified on 10/18/2001 (Entered: 09/19/2001)
32 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part, denying in part [30-1] amended motion for leave to file sur-response and brief in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, granting in part, denying in

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?707980309284645-L_923_0-1

7/5/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 7 of 11

02/20/2002 03/14/2002 03/18/2002
03/19/2002 06/06/2002 07/03/2002 07/03/2002
09/26/2002

part [29-1] motion for leave to file sur-response and brief in opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, denying as moot[25-1] motion to strike plaintiff EEOC's evidence in support of its response to defendants' motion to dismiss, granting [16-1] motion to amend [4-1] answer, denying as moot [14-1] motion to dismiss.(see order for specifics) (Signed by Judge Jorge A. Solis) Copies to counsel: 10/17/01 Page(s): 11 (lmr) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
33 Designation of Experts by intervenor-plaintiff Lisa R Thornton, intervenor-plaintiff Robyn P McGehee, intervenor-plaintiff Nicole Cleveland, intervenor-plaintiff Nicolle B Gaffney.(3) (lmr) (Entered: 02/21/2002)
34 Designation of Experts by defendant Texas Wings Inc, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Hooters Arlington.(2) (lmr) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
35 AGREED MOTION by intervenor-plaintiff Lisa R Thornton, intervenorplaintiff Robyn P McGehee, intervenor-plaintiff Nicole Cleveland, intervenor-plaintiff Nicolle B Gaffney, defendant Texas Wings Inc, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Hooters Arlington, plaintiff EEOC to seek an extension of the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines .(3) (lmr) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
36 ORDER granting [35-1] motion to seek an extension of the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines reset discovery due for 6/15/02 , reset scheduling order deadlines: Deadline for filing of dispositive motions by 7/15/02 .(see order for specifics) ( Signed by Judge Jorge A. Solis ) Copies to counsel: 03/19/02 Page(s) 1 (lmr) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
37 AGREED MOTION by intervenor-plaintiff Lisa R Thornton, intervenorplaintiff Robyn P McGehee, intervenor-plaintiff Nicole Cleveland, intervenor-plaintiff Nicolle B Gaffney, defendant Texas Wings Inc, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Hooters Arlington, plaintiff EEOC for continuance .(4) (lmr) (Entered: 06/06/2002)
38 ORDER granting [37-1] motion for continuance..It is ordered that this case shall not be reset for earlier than 90 days from its current setting and that this case is continued to February 3, 2002 ( Signed by Judge Jorge A. Solis ) Copies to counsel: 07/03/02 Page(s) 2 (lmr) (Entered: 07/03/2002)
39 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER setting Docket call set for 9:00 2/3/03 ; Pretrial conference for 9:00 1/17/03 ; Discovery cutoff 9/17/02 ; Deadline for filing of dispositive motions 10/17/02 ; Proposed pretrial order due 1/10/03 ; Pretrial materials due on 1/27/03.(see order for specifics) ( Signed by Judge Jorge A. Solis ) Copies to counsel: 07/03/03 Page(s): 3 (lmr) (Entered: 07/03/2002)
40 AGREED MOTION by plaintiff EEOC, intervenor-plaintiff Lisa R Thornton, intervenor-plaintiff Robyn P McGehee, intervenor-plaintiff Nicole Cleveland, intervenor-plaintiff Nicolle B Gaffney to seek an extension of the Discovery and Dispositive motion deadlines and request for new scheduling order .(5) (lmr) (Entered: 09/26/2002)

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?707980309284645-L_923_0-1

7/5/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 8 of 11

09/30/2002 09/30/2002
10/03/2002 10/03/2002 10/03/2002 10/23/2002 10/23/2002 10/23/2002 10/23/2002

41 FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER setting Docket call set for 9:00 9/15/03 ; Pretrial conference for 10:00 8/29/03 ; Discovery cutoff 5/15/03 ; Deadline for filing of dispositive motions 6/15/03 ; Proposed pretrial order due 8/22/03 ; Pretrial materials due on 9/8/03.(see order for specifics) ( Signed by Judge Jorge A. Solis ) Copies to counsel: 09/30/02 Page(s): 3 (lmr) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
42 ORDER granting [40-1] motion to seek an extension of the Discovery and Dispositive motion deadlines and request for new scheduling order. reset scheduling order deadlines: Discovery deadline on 5/15/03 Deadline for filing of dispositive motions by 6/15/03 .Accordingly the Court will issue an Amended Scheduling Order and Trial Date.(see order for specifics) ( Signed by Judge Jorge A. Solis ) Copies to counsel: 09/30/02 Page(s) 2 (lmr) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
43 MOTION by defendant Texas Wings Inc, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Hooters Arlington for summary judgment as to Intervenor Robyn Purvis McGehee's claims individually, and through the EEOC .(4) (lmr) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
44 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM by defendant Texas Wings Inc, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Hooters Arlington in support of [43-1] motion for summary judgment as to Intervenor Robyn Purvis McGehee's claims individually, and through the EEOC.(12) (lmr) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
45 APPENDIX by defendant Texas Wings Inc, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Hooters Arlington in support of [43-1] motion for summary judgment as to Intervenor Robyn Purvis McGehee's claims individually, and through the EEOC.(15+)(not imaged)(usc) (lmr) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
46 RESPONSE by plaintiff EEOC, intervenor-plaintiff Lisa R Thornton, intervenor-plaintiff Robyn P McGehee, intervenor-plaintiff Nicole Cleveland, intervenor-plaintiff Nicolle B Gaffney to [43-1] motion for summary judgment as to Intervenor Robyn Purvis McGehee's claims individually, and through the EEOC.(4) (lmr) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
47 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff EEOC, intervenor-plaintiff Lisa R Thornton, intervenor-plaintiff Robyn P McGehee, intervenor-plaintiff Nicole Cleveland, intervenor-plaintiff Nicolle B Gaffney in support of [46-1] motion response, and in the alternative request for a continuance under Rule 56(f).(15+) (lmr) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
47 REQUEST/MOTION by plaintiff EEOC, intervenor-plaintiff Lisa R Thornton, intervenor-plaintiff Robyn P McGehee, intervenor-plaintiff Nicole Cleveland, intervenor-plaintiff Nicolle B Gaffney for continuance under Rule 56(f) .(15+) (lmr) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
48 APPENDIX by plaintiff EEOC, intervenor-plaintiff Lisa R Thornton, intervenor-plaintiff Robyn P McGehee, intervenor-plaintiff Nicole Cleveland, intervenor-plaintiff Nicolle B Gaffney in support of [46-1] motion response.(15+)(not imaged) (lmr) (Entered: 10/24/2002)

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?707980309284645-L_923_0-1

7/5/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 9 of 11

11/07/2002 11/07/2002 11/18/2002 11/18/2002 11/25/2002
12/03/2002 02/07/2003
02/21/2003 03/31/2003
04/08/2003 04/08/2003

49 MOTION by defendant Texas Wings Inc, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Hooters Arlington for leave to amend [4-1] answers .(14) (exhibits not imaged) (lmr) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
50 REPLY and OBJECTION by defendant Texas Wings Inc, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Hooters Arlington to response to [43-1] motion for summary judgment as to Intervenor Robyn Purvis McGehee's claims individually, and through the EEOC.(6) (lmr) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
51 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for leave to file sur-response in response to defendants' reply and objection to plaintiff's and intervenor's response to defendant's motion for summary judgment .(4) (lmr) (Entered: 11/19/2002)
52 RESPONSE by plaintiff EEOC to [49-1] motion for leave to amend [4-1] answers.(12)(exhibits not imaged) (lmr) (Entered: 11/19/2002)
53 SPECIAL ORDER NO. 3-221. Effective 11/25/02, the cases listed on Exhibit A attached to this order are transferred from the docket of Honorable Jorge A. Solis to the docket of Honorable Ed Kinkeade and shall henceforth carry the suffix letter "K". ( Signed by Chief Judge A. J. Fish ) Copies to counsel: 11/25/02 Page(s): 3 (aat) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
54 REPLY by defendant Hooters Arlington, defendant TWI IV Inc, defendant Texas Wings Inc to response to [49-1] motion for leave to amend [4-1] answers (3) (aat) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
55 ORDER REGARDING TRANSITION. All existing scheduling orders, trial settings and referrals to magistrate judges are adopted and remain in full force and effect. Counsel are directed to confer and file a joint status report with the Court no later than 14 days after the date of this order. See order for specifics. ( Signed by Judge Ed Kinkeade) Copies to counsel: 2/7/03 Page(s): 3 (aat) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
56 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Nicole Cleveland, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Nicolle B Gaffney, Hooters Arlington Venture I, Robyn P McGehee, TWI IV Inc, Texas Wings Inc, Lisa R Thornton. (lmr, ) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
57 ORDER granting 49 Motion for leave to amend [4-1] answers. Defendants are hereby granted leave of the Court to file their Defendant's Second Amended Answer to EEOC's Original Complaint and Defendants' First Amended Answer to Original Complaint in Intervention within 10 days of this Order.(see order for specifics) (Signed by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 03/31/03) (lmr, ) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
58 FIRST AMENDED ANSWER to 12 Intervenor Complaint by Hooters Arlington Venture I, TWI IV Inc, Texas Wings Inc. (djd, ) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
59 SECOND AMENDED ANSWER to EEOC's 1 Complaint by Hooters Arlington Venture I, TWI IV Inc, Texas Wings Inc. (djd, ) (Entered: 04/09/2003)

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?707980309284645-L_923_0-1

7/5/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 10 of 11

04/23/2003 04/30/2003 05/06/2003 05/08/2003 06/03/2003
06/16/2003 06/26/2003 07/01/2003
08/11/2003
08/25/2003
09/19/2003
09/23/2003

60 MOTION to withdraw as attorney in charge by William E. Robbins for Robyn P McGehee. (aat, ) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
61 NOTICE of Scheduled Mediation Conference. (lmr, ) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
Vacation Letter as to attorney, John M. Schutza for dates September 1-5, 2003. (lmr, ) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
62 MEDIATION ORDER. Type of ADR: MEDIATION. Courtenay Lee Bass appointed. The mediator shall submit a report to the Court within 5 days of mediation.(see order for specifics) (Signed by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 05/08/03) (lmr, ) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
63 AGREED MOTION to Extend Time of the Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines and Request for a new Scheduling Order by Nicole Cleveland, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Nicolle B Gaffney, Hooters Arlington Venture I, Robyn P McGehee, TWI IV Inc, Texas Wings Inc, Lisa R Thornton. (lmr, ) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
64 NOTICE of designation of lead attorney in charge by John M Schutza on behalf of Nicole Cleveland, Nicolle B Gaffney, Robyn P McGehee, Lisa R Thornton. (aat, ) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
65 ORDER denying 60 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. (see order for specifics) (Signed by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 06/26/03) (lmr, ) (Entered: 06/30/2003)
66 Alternative Dispute Resolution Summary filed by Courtenay Lee Bass. Attorneys in Attendance: William Backhaus, Suzanne Anderson, John Gesser, Terri Rabe, Mike Herrick, Gary Frost, Nicolle Gaffney, Nicole Cleveland, John Schutz and Lisa Thornton. Prv Fee: 3750.00. Disposition: Continuing to work with parties to reach settlement.(lmr, ) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
67 Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 43 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Texas Wings Inc, Hooters Arlington Venture I, TWI IV Inc. The Court finds that genuine issues of materal fact exist, and that the motion should be Denied.(see order for specifics) (Signed by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 08/11/03) (lmr, ) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
68 ORDER granting 51 Motion for or leave to file sur-response in response to defendants' reply and objection to plaintiff's and intervenor's response to defendant's motion for summary judgment, denying 63 Motion for continuance of discovery deadline.(see order for specifics) (Signed by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 08/26/03) (lmr, ) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
69 Order of Administrative Closure..The Court is notified that this case has settled. The parties are therefore directed to file the necessary dismissal papers(stipulation of dismissal and an agreed order) with the Clerk's Office by October 14, 2003.(see order for specifics) (Signed by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 09/19/03) (lmr, ) (Entered: 09/23/2003)
70 CONSENT DECREE/ORDER..The Court finds appropriate, and it is

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?707980309284645-L_923_0-1

7/5/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 11 of 11

09/30/2003 10/06/2003

Ordered that this Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in EEOC Charge Nos. 310980973, 310980974, 310980972 and 310980971. This Decree further resolves all issues in the Complaints filed by the EEOC and the Intervenors in this civil action. (see order for specifics) (Signed by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 09/23/03) (lmr, ) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
71 STIPULATION/ MOTION of Dismissal by Nicole Cleveland, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Nicolle B Gaffney, Hooters Arlington Venture I, Robyn P McGehee, TWI IV Inc, Texas Wings Inc, Lisa R Thornton. (lmr, ) (Entered: 10/02/2003)
72 ORDER granting 71 STIPULATION/ MOTION of Dismissal and Dismisses the case. (Signed by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 10/06/03) (lmr, ) (Entered: 10/07/2003)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

07/05/2006 09:52:30

hs0328

Client Code:

Docket Report Search Criteria:

7

Cost:

peters 3:01-cv-00619 0.56

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?707980309284645-L_923_0-1

7/5/2006