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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

JAMESON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

)

(a subsidiary of Jameson Health System, Inc.) )

)

Defendant.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.:
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices that discriminate on the basis of race

and to provide appropriate relief to Julie A. Bailey ("Ms. Bailey"), an African American female, who

was adversely affected by such practices while employed by Defendant, Jameson Memorial Hospital

(a subsidiary of Jameson Health System, Inc.) ("Jameson"). As articulated with greater particularity

in paragraphs 7 and 8 below, the Commission alleges that Ms. Bailey was denied the opportunity to

advance into Defendant’s MRI Department while similarly situated white employees were permitted

to train and work within the department, including white employees who did not possess an MILl

certification.

In addition, the Commission alleges that after Ms. Bailey filed a charge of discrimination

alleging race discrimination with the EEOC, Defendant retaliated against her when it continued to

deny her training and work opportunities within the MRI Department which impacted her earning

potential. As a result of Defendant’s failure to provide Ms. Bailey advancement opportunities into

the MILt Department, she suffered severe emotional distress and back pay damages.

(~a~210~~-gFCDod~a~ddt01--11 F:FI~0~2~

~22~f8~

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to §706(0 (1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VIF’) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(0(1) and (3) of Title VII, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(f)(1) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jameson Memorial Hospital (a subsidiary of Jameson Health System, Inc.. ("Jameson"), has been and is now doing bus]ness in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the City of New Castle and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e)(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Julie Bailey filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

(~a~210~~-gFCDod~a~ddt01--11 F:FI~O~2~

~fS~

7. Since at least July of 2004, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its New Castle, Pennsylvania location in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-2(a)(1), by failing to provide Ms. Bailey advancement opportunities, including training, scheduled hours and/or a MRI Technician position, in the MRI Department because of her race (African American), based upon incidents which include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Julie A. Bailey has been employed by Defendant since March 5, 2001. At all relevant times, she held the position of Radiology Technician. Ms. Bailey is an African American female.
(b) From January 2004 through June of 2004, Ms. Bailey underwent classroom and clinical training in Magnetic Resonance Imaging ("MRI") at Jameson Health System School of MRI.
(c) In and around July of 2004, Defendant offered additional MRI training and/or crosstraining ("training") to its Radiographic Technicians. However, Ms. Bailey was denied the opportunity for the additional MRI training hours in the MRI Department while similarly situated white co-workers, including white employees who were not MRI Certified, were afforded additional training hours. Upon information and belief, at least one white female emptoyee who did not possess an MRI Certification was given a MRI position in the MRI Department.
(d) Defendant’s policy states that "[a]I1 full and part-time employees working in the Jameson MRI Department have MRI Registry [Certification]". However, Defendant routinely permitted white employees without MRI Certification to train and work in the MRI department.
(e) Defendant’s facility, especially the MRI Department, was biased against black employees. White employees regularly used racial epithets towards the African-American employees, including the term "nigger." For instance, a white co-worker stated to Ms. Bailey that she had heard that Ms. Bailey had contacted the NAACP which the white employee referred to as

(~a~21(3~~-gFCDo~r~ddt01--11 F~i~t:JOZ~:;~ZIl[~ ~fS~
the "white limos." Moreover, the same white employee would refer to the NAACP as the organization that "makes money for niggers." When racial epithets and terms like "niggef’ were made in the presence of Defendant’s management, including Ms. Bailey’s supervisor and department head, no corrective nor disciplinary action was taken.
(f) In and around July of 2005, Ms. Bailey passed her ARRT (MRI) Registry Exam and received her MRI Certification.
(g) Following the receipt of her MP, ff Certification, Defendant continued to deny Ms. Bailey advancement opportunities within the MRI Department. After receiving her ~ certification, Ms. Bailey actively sought additional training hours and/or hours in the MR/Department from both Defendant’s Department Administrator and Head of Human Resources. Ms. Baileywas continually advised that there were no available positions. However, non-MR~ Certified white employees were permitted to obtain additional training hours and/or work within the MRI Department. At least one of the non-MRI Certified white co-workers did not actively seek a position within the MRI Department, yet received additional training and hours.
8. Since at least December of 2004, Defendant Employer has engaged in untawful employment practices at its New Castle, Pennsylvania location in violation of Section 704(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-2(a)(1), by retaliating against Ms. Bailey as follows:
(a) Following Defendant’s denial of training and work hours within the MRI department, Ms. Bailey filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging race discrimination on or about December 1, 2004. As a result of her protected activity, Ms. Bailey suffered adverse action when she was continually denied additional training and hours in the M~ Department.
(b) Moreover, white co-workers who were not MRI Certified were permitted to continue

~210~~-gFCDod~a~ddtO¢-11 F~i~gdO~~

~fS~

training and/or working in the MRI Department. 9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8, and their respective
sub-parts, above has been to deprive Julie A. Bailey of equal employment opportunities, including promotion/advancement and/or training opportunities in the workplace, and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her race.
10. The acts complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8, and their respective sub-parts, above were intentional.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8, and their respective sub-parts, above were done with reckless indifference to the federally protected fights of Julie A. Bailey as an employee.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant apermanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and ali persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any other employment practice which discriminates on the bases of race and/or retaliation. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African American employees, which provide for an opportunity to be promoted/advance in the workplace, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out anti-discrimination and antiretaliation policies and complaint procedures. D. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out complaint procedures which

(~a~210~~-gFCDod~a~ddt01--11 F:FI~O~2~

~fS~

encourage employees to come forward with complaints regarding violations of its policies against discrimination and retaliation.
E. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out a training program which shall promote supervisor accountability imposing on all managers and supervisory personnel a duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure compliance with policies on non-discrimination and antiretaliation; and requiring all managers and supervisors to report any incidents and/or complaints of discrimination and/or retaliation of which they become aware to the department charged with handling such complaints.
F. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Julie A. Bailey by providing appropriate back pay, with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
G. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Julie A. Bailey by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7 and 8, and their respective sub-parts, above, including, but not limited to out-of-pocket losses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
H. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Julie A. Bailey by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8, and their respective sub-parts, above, including pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of life’s enjoyment and pleasures, depression, anxiety and inconvenience, in amounts to be determined at trial.
I. Order Defendant Employer to pay Julie A. Bailey punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7 and 8, and their respective sub-parts, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
6

(~a~210~~-gFCDod~a~ddt01--11 F:FI~0~2~

~77~f8~

J. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest. K.

Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

J’~v~S L. I~E Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 L. Street, NW Washington, DC 20507

Regional Attorney
OYLE Sup " ory Trial Attorney,
¯ Trial Attorney PA I.D. # 77752 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Philadelphia District Office The Bourse Building 21 S. 5~ Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 440-2841 _s!ephanie.marino@eeo.c.gov

SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY
PA I.D. # 42738 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
7

(~a~210~~-gFCDod~a~ddt01--11 F:FI~O~2~

~fS~

PITTSBURGH AREA OFFICE LIBERTY CENTER, SUITE 300
TELEPHONE: (412) 644-6439
JEAN.CLICKNER@EEOC.GOV

 
 Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 7 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 1 of 8

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

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. JAM ESON MEM OR IAL HOSPITAL, Defendant. JULIE A. BAILEY, Plain tiff-Int erv en or, v. JAMESON MEM ORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant.

) ) ) Civil Action No. 06-168 ) ) ) ) Electronically Filed ) ) ) ) Judge Joy Flowers Conti ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

COM PLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENO R, JULIE A. BAILEY

Plaintiff-Intervenor, Julie A. Bailey, by and through her counsel, Joseph H. Chivers, Esqu ire, allege an d ave r as follow s:

NATURE OF THE ACTION, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended (42

U.S.C. §2000 et seq.), the Pennsylvania Hum an Relations Act (PHRA), as amended (43 Pa.

C.S.A. §951 et seq.), and PA common law to correct unlawful employment practices on the

basis of race, and retaliation for engaging in protected activities, and to make whole

Plaintiff-Intervenor.

Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 7 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 2 of 8

2.

Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and, for supplemental

state claims, 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Title

VII and the PHRA.

3.

The actions and policies alleged to be unlawful were comm itted in and around New C astle,

Pennsylvania, where Defendant is located and where Plaintiff-Intervenor worked and,

therefore, this action is within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the

Western District of Pennsylvania, and the venue is proper.

4.

Plaintiff-Intervenor filed a timely charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

(PHRC) (within 300 days / 180 days of the discriminatory actions).

PARTIES

5.

Plaintiff-Intervenor Julie A. Bailey (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff-Intervenor" or "Ms.

Bailey"), has resided at all relevant times at 508 East Elizabeth Street, New Castle, PA

16105. Plaintiff-Intervenor has been employed by Defendant Jameson M emorial Hospital

since on or about March 5, 2001, until the present.

6.

At all relevant times, Jameson Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant” or

“Jameson”), a subsidiary of Jameson Health System, Inc., has been doing business in the

Comm onwealth of Pennsylvania and is located at 1211 Wilmington Road, New Castle, PA

151 06.

7.

At all relevant tim es, Jameson has been subject to Title VII and the PHRA.

Page 2 of 8

Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 7 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 3 of 8

THE ORIGINAL LAW SUIT

8.

On February 9, 2006, the EEOC filed a Complaint in this Court (Civil Action No. 06-0168)

against Jam eson M emorial Hospital alleging that Jameson M emorial Hospital engaged in

unlawful employment practices against M s. Bailey.

9.

Ms. Bailey seeks to intervene in the proceeding commenced by the EEOC, pursuant to

section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S COMPLAINT
10. Ms. Bailey has been employed by Defendant as a Radiology Technician since on or about March 5, 2001. Ms. Bailey is an African American female.

11. Since at least July of 2004, Defendant has failed to provide Ms. Bailey advancement opportunities, including training, scheduled hours and/or a MRI Technician position, in the MRI Department because of her race (African Am erican).

12. From January 2004 through June 2004, Ms. Bailey underwent classroom and clinical training in M agnetic Resonance Imaging (“M RI”) at Jameson Health System School of M RI.

13. In and around July 2004, Defendant offered additional MRI training and/or cross-training to its Radiographic Technicians. However, Ms. Bailey was denied the opportunity for the additional MRI training hours in the MRI Department while similarly situated white coworkers, including white employees who w ere not MRI Certified, were afforded additional training hours. Upon information and belief, at least one white female employee who did
Page 3 of 8

Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 7 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 4 of 8
not possess an M RI Certification was given a M RI position in the MRI Department.
14. Defendant’s policy states that “[a]ll full and part-time employees working in the Jameson MRI Department have MRI Registry [Certification]”. However, Defendant routinely permitted white employees without MRI Certification to train and work in the MRI De pa rtm en t.
15. Defendant’s facility, especially the MRI Department, was biased against black employees. Wh ite employees regularly used racial epithets towards the African-American employees, including the term “nigger.” For instance, a white co-worker stated to Ms. Bailey that she had heard that Ms. Bailey had contacted the NAACP which the white employee referred to as “white limos.” Moreover, the same white employee would refer to the NAACP as the organization that “makes money for niggers.” When racial epithets and terms like “nigger” w ere m ade in the presence of Defendant’s management, including M s. Bailey’s supervisor and department head, no corrective nor disciplinary action was taken.
16. In or about July 2005, Ms. Bailey passed her ARRT (MR I) Registry Exam and received her MRI Certification.
17. Following the receipt of her MRI Certification, Defendant continued to deny Ms. Bailey advancement opportunities w ithin the MRI Department.
18. After receiving her M RI Certification, Ms. Bailey actively sought additional training hours and/or hours in the MRI Department from both Defendant’s Department Administrator and Head of Hum an Resources.
Page 4 of 8

Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 7 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 5 of 8
19. Ms. Bailey w as continually advised that there were no available positions.
20. However, non-MRI Certified white employees were permitted to obtain additional training hours and/or work within the MRI Department.
21. At least one of the non-MRI Certified white co-workers did not actively seek a position within the MRI Department, yet received additional training and hours.
22. Since at least December 2004, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its New Castle, PA location in violation of Section 704(a)(1) of Title VII, by retaliating against Ms. Bailey as follows:
23. Following Defendant’s denial of training and work hours w ithin the MR I Department, Ms. Bailey filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging race discrimination on or about Decemb er 1, 2004. As a result of her protected activity, Ms. Bailey suffered adverse action when she was continually denied additional training and hours in the MRI De pa rtm en t.
24. Moreover, white co-workers who were not MRI Certified were permitted to continue training and/or working in the MRI Department.
25. The effect of the retaliation has been to deprive Ms. Bailey of equal employment opportunities, including promotion/advancement and/or training opportunities in the workplace, and otherwise adversely affect her status as an em ployee because of her race.
26. Defendant’s discriminatory treatm ent and retaliation against Ms. Bailey w ere intentional.
Page 5 of 8

Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 7 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 6 of 8
27. Defendant’s discriminatory treatment and retaliation were done with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Bailey as an employee.
COUNT I: RACE DISCRIM INATION (TITLE VII / PHRA) 28. Plaintiff-Intervenor hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 27 of her Complaint as
though the same were more fully set forth at length herein.
29. Plaintiff-Intervenor w as discrim inated against because of her race (African Am erican).
30. Plaintiff-Intervenor has suffered tangible and intangible losses resulting from the racial disc rim inat ion .
31. Plaintiff-Intervenor is entitled to lost w ages and benefits unlawfully denied, compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages (under Title VII) and other appropriate relief, including reinstatement.
COUNT II: RETALIATION (TITLE VII / PHRA)
32. Plaintiff-Intervenor hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 31 of her Complaint as though the same were more fully set forth herein.
33. Plaintiff-Intervenor engaged in protected activities within the meaning of Title VII and the PHRA by complaining about race discrimination both internally with the employer and with the EEOC/PHRC.
Page 6 of 8

Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 7 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 7 of 8

34. Plaintiff-Intervenor was retaliated against because she engaged in these protected activities.

35. The retaliation is in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.

36. Defendant knows its actions against Plaintiff-Intervenor are in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.

37. Plaintiff-Intervenor has suffered tangible and intangible losses resulting from Defendant’s violation of the law: loss of pay; loss of promo tional opportunities; humiliation; mental anguish; and, damage to reputation.

38. Plaintiff-Intervenor is seeking lost wages, com pensation for pain and suffering, attorney’s fees and costs.

39. Defendant’s violations of the law are knowing and willful and with malicious intent. Plaintiff-Intervenor is therefore also seeking punitive dam ages under Title VII.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

40. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor respectfully requests that this Court:

A.

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, and

assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them from engaging

in any employment practice which violates public policy.

B.

Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiff-Intervenor, by paying appropriate back

pay with prejudgment interest and/or other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate

the effects of its unlawful actions and practices.

Page 7 of 8

Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 7 Filed 03/30/2006 Page 8 of 8

C.

Order Defendant to pay compensatory and punitive damages to Plaintiff-Intervenor

in an amount to be determined at trial.

D.

Order Defendant to pay the costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by

Plaintiff-Intervenor.

E.

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

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: March 30, 2006

s/Joseph H. Chivers Joseph H. Chivers, Esquire PA ID No. 39184 Suite 600 312 Boulevard of the Allies Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1923 (412) 281-1110 (412) 281-8481 FAX j ch i v er s @ e m p lo y m e n tr ig h t sg r o u p .c o m
Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor Julie A. Bailey

Page 8 of 8

 
 • Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC

Document 12

• Filed 07/19/2006

Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANlA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff,

) ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 06-cv-Ol68

)

v.

)

)

JAMESON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

)

(a subsidiary of Jameson Health System, Inc.) )

)

Defendant.

)

------------------------------------------------------------- ) CONSENT DECREE

Introduction

A. This action was instituted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("the EEOC" or "the Commission") on or about February 9, 2006 against Jameson Memorial

Hospital (a subsidiary of Jameson Health System, Inc.) ("Jameson" or "Defendant") to enforce

provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et ~ ("Title

VII"). In its Complaint, the Commission alleged that Charging Party, Julie A. Bailey, an African

American female, was denied the opportunity to advance into Defendant's MRI department while

similarly situated white employees were permitted to train and work within the department, including

white employees who did not possess MRI certification. Further, the Complaint alleged that after

Ms. Bailey engaged in protected activity by filing a Charge of Discrimination alleging race

discrimination with the EEOC, Defendant retaliated against her when it continued to deny her

training and work opportunities in the MRI department. The Complaint alleges that as a result of

the racial discrimination and retaliatory behavior, the Charging Party suffered severe emotional

distress and damages as a result of the aforementioned illegal conduct of the Defendant.

• Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC

Document 12

• Filed 07/19/2006

Page 2 of 11

B. This Consent Decree is entered into by and shall be final and binding between the EEOC and Jameson, its directors, officers, agents, successors and assigns.
C. The Commission and Defendant agree to the entry of this Consent Decree, which shall fully and finally resolve all claims the EEOC raised in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 06-cv0168 (JFC). This Consent Decree shall not constitute either an adjudication of or finding on the merits ofthe complaint and shall not be construed as an admission by Defendant ofany violation of Title VII.
Findings D. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings, record and stipulations ofthe parties, the Court finds: (I) it has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter jurisdiction of this action; and (2) the terms of this Decree are fair, reasonable, equitable andjust, and adequately protect the rights ofthe parties, and the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
Non-Discrimination and Non-Retaliation I. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action. 2. Defendant will not harass or discriminate against any employee on the basis ofrace in violation of Title VII. 3. Defendant will not engage in any employment practices which retaliate in any manner against any person, including but not limited to Julie A. Bailey, because ofthat person's opposition to any practice made an unlawful employment practice under Title VII or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII.

2

• Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC

Document 12

• Filed 07/19/2006

Page 3 of 11

4. Defendant shall only divulge to any identifiable employer or potential employer of Julie A. Bailey, Ms. Bailey's start date, position title, final salary and end date and indicate that such limited disclosure is part of its business practice.
5. Nothing in this Consent Decree, either by inclusion or exclusion, shall be construed to limit the obligations ofDefendant under Title VII or the EEOC's authority to process or litigate any charge of discrimination now pending or filed in the future against Defendant.
Monetary Relief 6. No later than 15 days after receipt of a Release executed by Ms. Bailey, Defendant agrees to pay monetary reliefin the amount of$50,000.00 to Julie A. Bailey, and her private counsel in full settlement of the claim raised on her behalf against Defendant in the EEOC's Complaint. A copy of the check will be mailed to Ms. Bailey's private attorney and a copy within five business days thereafter shall be sent to the attention of Stephanie Marino, Trial Attorney, EEOC, 21 South Fifth Street, Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515. In order to receive this monetary relief, Ms. Bailey must execute a Release, to be presented to her by Defendant. Late payment ofthe check will be subject to the accrual of interest on the unpaid amount, calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.c. 1961.
Posting of Notice 7. Within 20 business days after entry of this Decree, Defendant shall post at its Jameson work site(s) on all bulletin boards, used by Defendant for communicating with employees, same-sized copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit A to this Decree. The Notice shall remain posted for two (2) years from the date of entry ofthis Decree. Defendant shall forward a certification that the Notice has been posted and dates of posting within 30 days after entry of this Decree to Stephanie Marino, Trial Attorney, EEOC, 21 South Fifth Street Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA 19106-

3

• Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC

Document 12

• Filed 07/19/2006

Page 4 of 11

2515. Ifposted copies become defaced, removed, marred or otherwise illegible, Defendant agrees to post a readable copy in the same manner as heretofore specified.
Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policies and Complaint Procedures 8. Defendant agrees to revise its policy against race discrimination, harassment and retaliation and complaint procedures, which shall be drafted in plain and simple language. Defendant shall ensure that its policy or policies against race discrimination, harassment and retaliation and related complaint procedures meet the following minimum criteria: (a) state that Defendant: (i) prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of race, and prohibits retaliation in violation ofTitle VII; (ii) prohibits retaliation against employees for opposing employment practices they reasonably believe are discriminatory or for participating in an investigation by the EEOC or a state or local governmental agency of a charge of discrimination under Title VII; (iii) prohibits any act, policy or practice that has the effect of harassing or intimidating any employee on the basis ofrace, in violation of Title VII; and (iv) prohibits any act, policy or practice that has the effect of creating, facilitating or permitting the existence of a work environment that is hostile to employees through acts such as physical/verbal abuse and derogatory comments based on race, in violation of Title VII; (b) include a complaint procedure designed to encourage employees to come forward with complaints regarding violations ofits policy or policies against race discrimination, harassment and retaliation, which shall meet the following minimum criteria: (i) provide effective mechanism(s) for reporting incidents ofrace discrimination, harassment and retaliation; (ii) provide that the complaints of race discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation can be made either in writing or verbally; (iii) identify an employee or employees at Defendant s worksite(s), to whom an

4

o o Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 12 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 5 of 11
employee can make a complaint; (iv) encourage prompt reporting by employees; and (v) provide assurances that complainants shall not be subjected to retaliation;
(c) provide for prompt investigation of complaints of race discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation;
(d) provide for prompt communication to the complaining party of the results of the investigation and any remedial actions takcn or proposed; and
(e) provide for discipline up to and including discharge ofan employee or supervisor who violates Defendant's policy or policies against race discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and for increasingly severe discipline of repeat offenders.
9. Defendant shall distribute to all of its employees and newly-hired employees, its policy or policies against race discrimination, harassment and retaliation within 30 days after entry of this Consent Decree.
10. Within 30 days after entry ofthis Consent Decree, Defendant shall advise Stephanie Marino, Trial Attorney, EEOC's Philadelphia District Office, that its policy or policies against race discrimination, harassment and retaliation have been distributed to current employees, including temporary employees, and that new employees, including temporary employees, will receive these policies and an opportunity to acknowledge receipt. Defendant will retain copies of any acknowledgment of receipt fonn for an employee in the employee's personnel file.
Supervisor Accountabilitv II. Defendant shall promote supervisor accountability by the following conduct: (a) providing annual anti-discrimination training to all of its supervisory and managerial
5

o o Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 12 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 6 of 11
personnel as set forth in Paragraphs 13; (b) disciplining, up to and including discharge, any supervisor or manager who violates
Defendant's policy or policies against race discrimination, harassment and retaliation; and (c) imposing on all managers and supervisory personnel a duty to administer their work
areas to ensure compliance with Defendant's policy against race discrimination, harassment and retaliation; and
(d) requiring all managers and supervisors to report any incidents and/or complaints ofrace discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation ofwhich they become aware to the employee or employees designated to handle complaints ofrace discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
Training 12. Defendant shall provide training on the requirements of Title VII as follows: (a) Defendant agrees to provide annual training sessions for any employee or employees at its Jameson work sites responsible for responding to Title VII complaints made at Jameson by a trainer approved by the EEOC. The training will cover employee rights and employer obligations under both Title VII and relevant state or local anti-discrimination laws, and will emphasize what constitutes unlawful harassment and discrimination in the workplace, how to keep the company free from such race discrimination, what constitutes unlawful retaliation, and will summarize how to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into allegations, complaints or charges of race discrimination; (b) Defendant has provided training in accordance with Parsgraph 13(a) in 2006, and will provide similar training annually during the term of the Consent Decree. 13. Defendant shall obtain the EEOC's approval of its proposed trainer prior to each year's training sessions.
6

o o Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 12 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 7 of 11
14. Defendants agree at its expense to provide the EEOC with copies of all pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written materials provided to attendees of training sessions. Even though the EEOC has approved of or designated a trainer to provide training for one year, it is not required to approve of or designate the same trainer for future training sessions.
15. Defendant shall certify to the EEOC in writing within 10 business days after the training sessions required by Paragraph 13 have occurred that the training has taken place and the personnel who attended. Such certification shall include: (i) the dates, location and duration ofthe training session; (ii) a copy of the registry of attendance, including the name and position of each person in attendance; and (iii) a listing of the employee or employees at Jameson's work site(s), responsible for responding to Title VII complaints made at Jameson as of the date of the training.
16. Defendant shall furnish to the EEOC the following written reports annually for a period oftwo (2) years following entry ofthis Decree with the first report due six months after entry of the Decree and the final report due 48 months after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain:
(a) a certification by Defendant that the Notice required to be posted by Paragraph 7 was posted during the six months preceding the report;
(b) a certification by Defendant that it has or will distribute the policy or policies against race discrimination, harassment and retaliation to all employees;
(c) a certification that Defendant has complied with training requirements ofthis Consent Decree;
(d) a summary of any additional actions Defendant took to prevent race discrimination, harassment and retaliation at Jameson s work site(s) during the six-month period preceding the report.
7

u Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 12 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 8 of 11
Dispute Resolution 17. In the event either party to this Decree believes the other party has failed to comply with any provision(8) ofthe Decree, the complaining party shall notifY the other party ofthe alleged non-compliance within 20 days ofthe alleged non-compliance and afford the alleged non-complying party 20 business days to remedy the non-compliance or satisfY the complaining party that the alleged non-complying partyhas complied. Ifthe alleged non-compiying partyhas not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within 20 business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
Miscellaneous Provisions 18. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 19. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, successors and assigns ofDefendant in their capacities as representatives, agents, directors and officers of Defendant and not in their individual capacities. This paragraph shall not be construed as placing any limit on remedies available to the Court in the event any individual is found in contempt for a violation ofthis Decree. 20. This Consent Decree shall fully and finally resolve all claims which wcre raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 06-cv-OJ68. 21. This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Western District ofPennsylvania and shall continue in effect for two (2) years. During this time, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the parties for purposes ofenforcing compliance with the Decree, including issuing such orders as may be required to effectuate its purposes. Any application by any party to modifY or vacate this Consent Decree during such period shall be made by motion to the Court on no less than 30 days' notice to the other party. Should any material disputes under this Decree remain unresolved after this two-year period, the term ofthe Decree shall be automatically

8
- - - - - - _.....

_._ _ - .........- ........

... __ I

Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 12 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 9 of 11 extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction ofthis matter to enforce the Consent Decree) until such time as all disputes have been resolved.
22. The Clerk of the District Court is hereby directed to send a file-stamped copy ofthis Consent Decree to counsel of record.
9

u Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 12 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 10 of 11

For Plaintiff EEOC:
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel Wash., D.C.

For Defendant Jameson Memorial Hospital (a subsidiary of Jameson Health Systenl, Inc.).:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTIJNlTY
COMMISSION
()eCiC Jac uehne ~.\M~Lar.r~
Regional Attorney

tikI \Iv; ,lIb C% C 0C4 Y

J ith A. O'Boyle <

,

Supervisory Trial Attorney

/

Pi' . Clark, Esquire . Balph. Nicolls, Nitsos, Flannery & Clark Suite 300, Sky Bank Building 14 North Mercer Street New Castle, PA 16101

Philadelphia District Office 21 S, 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2828
By the Court: ~ /s~ / Jo_y_F~ lo_w_e_rs_C__on_t_i _____________ JOY FLOWERS CONTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: _J_u_ly_1_7_,_2006

10

Case 2:06-cv-00168-JFC Document 12 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 11 of 11

EXHIBIT A NOTICE TO ALL JAMESON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES

This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court for the Western District ofPennsylvania in EEOC v. Jameson Memorial Hospital (a subsidiary ofJameson Health System, Inc.), Civil Action Number 06-cv-0168, resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Jameson Memorial Hospital (a subsidiary of Jameson Health System, Inc.)("Jameson")
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et~, as amended ("Title VII"), prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment based npon national origin, sex, race, color orreligion. Title VII further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves oftheir rights tmder Title VII by engaging in protected activities, such as filing a charge of discrimination and/or testifYing or participating in a Commission investigation. The EEOC is the federal agency which investigates charges oftmlawful employment discrimination. The EEOC has the authority to bring lawsuits in federal court to enforce Title VII.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Jameson subjected an employee to discrimination based on race and, after the employee engaged in protected activity, Jameson retaliated against the employee, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Jameson denies these allegations, and nothing in the Consent Decree shall constitute either an adjudication of or finding on the merits of the Complaint.

To resolve the case, Jameson and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree which provided, among other things, that: (I) Jameson agrees that it "till not discriminate on the basis of race in the future; (2) Jameson will not retaliate against any person because he or she opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII, filed a Title VII charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree; and (3) Jameson will train any employee or employees at Jameson s work sites with responsibility for responding to Title VII complaints made at Jameson, regarding race discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and regarding its policy prohibiting race diserimination, harassment and retaliation.

Ifyou believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (215) 4402600. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.

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

This Notice must remain posted for two (2) years from the date below and must not be

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

with its terms may be directed to the Regional Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Offiee, 21

~So~,~~

5th

Street,
, "

Philadelphj~PA 1 : 1
" III .17 (.1£' y-

0

6

'

?-2-:0L~

~tI //.l,.'.;"_~n_'_-/J-, --c---:c

lis. Equal En1p' oyment Oppoftunity

Jameson Memorial Hospital (a subsidiary of

Commission

Jameson Health System, Inc.)

DATED: -.2j:5lt2"",,&_~

t DATED: {p"';? -O~- - - -

 
 CM/ECF - pawd - Docket Report

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?685701697425578-L_...

U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cv-00168-JFC

CLOSED

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. JAMESON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Assigned to: Joy Flowers Conti Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 02/09/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by M. Jean Clickner Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1001 Liberty Avenue Suite 300, Liberty Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 644-6439 Firm: (412) 644-4935 Email: jean.clickner@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Marino Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 21 South Fifth Street Suite 400, The Bourse Building Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2841 Email: stephanie.marino@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff JULIE A. BAILEY

represented by Joseph H. Chivers 312 Boulevard of the Allies Suite 600 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 281-1110 Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 3

5/31/2007 1:48 PM

CM/ECF - pawd - Docket Report

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?685701697425578-L_...

V.
Defendant
JAMESON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL a subsidiary of Jameson Health System, Inc.

represented by Phillip L. Clark, Jr. Balph, Nicolls, Mitsos, Flannery & Clark 14 North Mercer Street 300 Sky Bank Building New Castle, PA 16101 (724) 658-2000 Email: pclark@balphnicolls.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/09/2006 02/09/2006 02/28/2006 02/28/2006 03/09/2006
03/10/2006 03/30/2006 03/30/2006 04/18/2006 05/17/2006

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against JAMESON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet # 2 Summons)(ksa) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
Summons Issued as to JAMESON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL. (ksa) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
2 MOTION to Intervene by Julie A. Bailey. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Complaint of Plaintiff-Intervenor, Julie A. Bailey)(Chivers, Joseph) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
3 ANSWER to Complaint by JAMESON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.(Clark, Phillip) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. JAMESON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL waiver sent on 3/3/2006, answer due 5/2/2006. (Marino, Stephanie) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
5 ORDER on Motion Practice. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti. (smc ) Modified on 3/27/2006 to indicate name of Judge that signed Order. (ksa) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
6 ORDER granting 2 Motion to Intervene. The Intervening Party is granted leave to file a Complaint in Intervention. Said Complaint must be filed by Aril 1, 2006. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 3/30/06. (smc ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
7 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Julie A. Bailey.(Chivers, Joseph) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
8 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by JAMESON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.(Clark, Phillip) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
9 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Initial Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for 8/11/06 4:30 PM in Courtroom 5A before Joy Flowers Conti. Pursuant to Rule 26(f), the parties must confer to consider the nature and basis of their claims and

2 of 3

5/31/2007 1:48 PM

CM/ECF - pawd - Docket Report

https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?685701697425578-L_...

06/30/2006
07/11/2006 07/19/2006

defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case and to make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) on or before 7/12/2006. The parties shall confer as necessary and file with the Clerk of Court a report within fourteen (14) days after the Rule 26(f) Conference. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 5/17/06. (smc) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
10 ORDER FOR STATISTICAL CLOSING. Court has been advised by counsel for the parties that the above-captioned action has been settled and that the only matter remaining to be completed is submission of a stipulation for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a). Nothing contained in this order shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this action. The court expressly retains jurisdiction in this matter to consider any issue arising during the period when settlement is being finalized, including but not limited to enforcing settlement. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 6/30/06. (smc ) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
11 Proposed CONSENT DECREE by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (Marino, Stephanie) Modified on 7/12/2006 to indicate document is a proposed consent decree (ksa). (Entered: 07/11/2006)
12 Approved Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 7/17/06. (smc ) (Entered: 07/19/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/31/2007 14:48:08

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

eeoc 2:06-cv-00168-JFC 0.16

3 of 3

5/31/2007 1:48 PM