IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

~.S. ~\5~’~AL EMI’LOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

URBAN RETAIL PROPERTIES CO., Defendant.

COMPL~A~STRATE JUDGE KEYS JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e etseq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to correct tmlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to Lilian Nunez, Amanda Wietting, Stephanie Coffey, Debra Neubauer, Jennifer Anderson ("the Charging Parties") employees of Urban Retail Properties Co. ("URP") and to a class of female employees who were adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), contends Defendant, URP, has discriminated against the Charging Parties, and a class of other female empioyees because of their sex, by subjecting them to a hostile and abusive work environment, and by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the harassment after the Defendant became aware of such behavior, in violation of Title VII.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(0(1) and (3) and Section 707 of Title VII of the Civii Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and -6, 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 District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastem Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity 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, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(0(I) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Illinois and the city of Joliet and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70I(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, the Charging Parties filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. AII conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
2

7. Since at least 1997, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). These practices include, but are not limited to, engaging in intentional discrimination against the Charging Parties and against a class of female employees by subjecting them to sexual and sexbased harassment, and failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the harassment after the Defendant became aware of the illegal behavior, all in continuing violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above has been to deprive the Charging Parties and a class of female employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex.
9. The malawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above were and are intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Charging Parties and a class of female employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wt-I~REFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, URP, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex; B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
3

C. Order Defendant to make whole the Charging Parties and a class of female employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practiees described above;
D. Order Defendant to make whole the Charging Parties and a class of female employees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation;
E. Order Defendant to pay the Charging Parties and a class of female employees punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described, in amounts to be determined at trial;
F. Order Defendant and its snccessors to provide training to its officers, managers and employees regarding sexual harassment in the workplace;
Grant such ftmher relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests ajm:¢ trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
4

Respectfully submitted,
NICHOLAS M. INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Assistant General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 "L" ~]eet, N.W./.}

16 ~1~ C. Hen~son

.

/

R~gio~IAttom,~

Noelle Brennan Supervis94-y Trial Attorney
Trial Attorney
Ethan M. M. Cohen A.R.D.C. No. 6206781 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-7568

Civil Cover Sheet

http:/lwww.iln d.uscourts,gov/PUBLIC/Formslauto_j s44 .c

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Civil Cover Sheet
This automated JS-44 conforms generaily to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. The information contained herein neither replaces nor suppiements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is authorized for use ~ in the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiff(s): United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
County of Residence:
Plaintiffs Arty: Ethan Cohen EEOC 500 W. Madison, #2800, Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7568

Defendant(s):Urban Retail Properties County of Residence: Defendant’s Arty:
6855

II. Basis of Jurisdiction: 1. U.S. Gov’t Plaintiff

L~r_ L~u I i O~l

III. Citizenship of Principal
Parties (Diversity Cases Only)
Plaintiff:- N/A Defendant:- N/A

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KI~Y$

IV. Origin ¯

1. Original Proceeding

V. Nature of Suit:

442 Employment

VI.Cause of Action:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e et seq. Discrimination on the basis of sex due t .o=haras~nent.

VII. Requested in Complaint

Class Action:

~’~

Dollar Demand:

July Demand: Yes

Thisc~e IS NOT a rennng" of a prewoumy- " dismissed case.

Signature:

Date: ~/~_~ ~-/0~

If any of this information is incorrect, please go back to the Civil Cover Sheet Input form using the Back button in your browser and change

it. Once correct, print tbAs form, sign and date it and submit it with your new eiviI action. Note: You may need to adjust the font

size in your browser display to make the form print properly.

Revised: 06128/00

U~*-~ED STATES DISTRICT COURT" NOk£HERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOI~

In the Matter of United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") v. Urban Retail Properties Co.

DOCKETED
SEP ~ ~ ZOOZ

6855
O SOHALL

APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY(S) FOR: Plaintiff, EEOC

~ss 500 W. Madison, Suite 2800 Chicago, lL 60661
re~mo~ (312) 353-8551 r~e,rr~cano~,~sg(s=r~,m4 o~ ~,~)A.R.D.C. No. 01187589

sm~rao~ss 500 W. Madison, Suite 2800

c~Y~srar~:~ Chicago, IL 60661

w~s~zorm~va~s~ (312) 886-9124

~,~rrnnca=om, m~ (sEE ~rm~os =w~sz~A.R.D.C. No. 06210804

~MB*~o~ mA~ ~A~? ~arro~

~s X v~s X

~o [] ~o []

n~Sm~AT~D *S LOC~ cotr~s~?

~s []

~o []

, ,¢)
SIGNATU1LE S~ ~

Ethan M. M. Cohen EEOC
sr~=ss 500 W. Madison, Suite 2800 c~=~srArvz,e Chicago, IL 60661

r~eeao~.m w.r~nr~ (312) 353-7568 No. 06206781 IBFNTIFICATION NI.DI~£R (SEE ITKM 4 ON IIgVERS£) A.R.D.C.

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR?

Y’~$ X

NO

"~;elle Brennan ~ /,(....i
EEOC
s~~ss 500 W. MMison, S~ 280~
~,,,
~swsra~z~ Chicago, ~ 60661
~L~.o~ (312) 353-7582

~ao~r~

~s ~ ~o X

B~SI~A~EB AS LOC~ CON~?

~S

~

NO ~

DBSI~ATE9 AS LO~ CONE?

~S

~ R0 ~

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

E E D
MICHAEL W, DOBBIN~

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 02 C 6855

and

JENNIFER ANDERSON, STEPHANIE COFFEY, DEBRA NEUBAUER, LILIAN) NUNEZ and AMANDA WEITTING,

Judge Gottschall Magistrate Judge Keys

Plaintiff-Interveners,) ~ERY TRIA~ DF~-D

v.

URBAN RETAIL PROPERTIES CO.,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Plaintiff-Interveners, JENNIFER ANDERSON, STEPHANIE

COFFEY, DEBRA NEUBAUER, LILIAN NUNEZ and AMANDA WEITTING,

by their attorneys, Edes and Rosen, hereby complain of the

Defendant, URBAN RETAIL PROFERTIES as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

I.

Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to

42 U.S.C. ~2000e-5 (f) (3) and 28 U.S.C. §1331. 2. Plaintiff, filed complaint 02 C 6855 on September

25, 2002. In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

U.S.C. §2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the

Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. ~1981a. Specifically,

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant discriminated against

JENNIFER ANDERSON, STEPHANIE COFFEY,

DEBRA

NEUBAUEE,

LILIAN NUNEZ and AMANDA WEITTING and to a class of female employees because of their sex, by subjecting them to a hostile and abusive work environment, and by failing to

take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the

harassment after the Defendant became aware of such

behavior, in violation of Title VII.

3. The acts complained of occurred at one of

Defendant’s work locations,

located in Will County,

Illinois.

Accordingly, venue is properly set in this

district under 28 U.S.C. ~1331 et. seq..

4.

Plaintiff-Interveners intervene in the above

captioned case as party plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 24(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f) (i);

PARTIES

5.

Plaintiff-Interveners,

JENNIFER

ANDERSON,

STEPHANIE COFFEY, DEBRA NEUBAUER, LILIAN NUNEZ and AMANDA

WEITTING, are citizens of the State of Illinois.

6.

Plaintiff-Interveners are current and former

female employees of Defendant.

7. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously

been and is now doing business in the state of Illinois and

the city of Joliet and has continuously had at least

fifteen (15) employees.

8. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously

been an employer engaged in industry affecting commerce with the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

9.

October 5, 2000 and November I, 2000, the

Plaintiff-Interveners

filed charges of discrimination

against Urban Retail Properties with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").

Amended charges were

filed in May of 2002 and a decision was finally reached by

the EEOC on June 19, 2002. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that Urban Retail Properties discriminated

against the Plaintiff-Interveners on the basis of their

sex, female, in that they were subjected to sexual

harassment in violation of Title VII. Conciliation failed

and EEOC filed a complaint in United States Federal

District Court.

All conditions precedent to the

institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

I0. Since at least 1997, Defendant has engaged in

unlawful employment practices at its facilities, in

violation of 42 U.S.C. ~2000e-2(a) (I).

These practices

include, but are not limited to, engaging in intentional discrimination against Plaintiff-Interveners by subjecting

them to sexual harassment in a hostile working environment

and failing to take prompt remedial action intended to

eliminate the harassment after the Defendant became aware

of the illegal behavior, all in ongoing and continuing

v±olation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a).

Ii.

The conduct by the Defendant is that which

Plaintiff-Interveners, as well as any reasonable person,

would consider sufficiently severe and pervasive~ in violation of 42 U.S.C. ~2000e et. seq..

12. The working conditions at Urban Retail Properties

evidenced a "’hostile working environment" which was

fostered and condoned by Defendant, in violation of 42

U.S.C. §2000e et. seq..

13.

The effect of the practices complained of by

Plaintiff-Interveners has been to adversely affect their

status as employees because of their sex and cause them

loss of income, emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment,

humiliation and loss of status and self-esteem.

14.

The unlawful employment practices complained of

were and are intentional.

15.

The unlawful employment practices complained of

were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference

4

to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiff-

Interveners.

Wherefore, JENNIFER ANDERSON, STEPHANIE COFFEY,

DEBRA

NEUBAUER, LILIAN NUNEZ and AMANDA WEITTING respectfully

request that this Court:

A.

Grant Plaintiff-Interveners intervention in this

case; B.

Order Defendant to make whole the Plaintiff-

Interveners by providing compensation for past and future

pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above.

C.

Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiff-

Interveners by providing compensation for past and future

non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering,

inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation;

D.

Order Defendant to pay Plaintiff-Interveners

punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct

described, in amounts to be determined at trial; E. Order Defendant to pay reasonable attorney’s fees

and costs incurred in this action;

Fo

Grant other relief as this Court deems just and

appropriate.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Plaintiff-Interveners request a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by their Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
By: Eric Jo Wright
Eric J. Wright (ARDC#6271526) Claire I. Rosen (ARDC#|88600) Attorneys for Plaintiff-Interveners EDES and ROSEN 180 N. LaSalle St. Suite 2620 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 372-4610

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

fJiJCKfTr.r /[,IIJ!

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

APR () 72003

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

JENNIFER ANDERSON, et ai., Plaintiff-Interveners,

)

)

Case No. 02 C 6855

)

)

Judge Gottschall

v.

)

URBAN RETAIL PROPERTIES CO.,

)

Magistrate Judge Keys

)

Defendant.

)

)

CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION
1. PlaintiffEqual Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") filed this action alleging that since at least January 1, 1997, Defendant, Urban Retail Properties ("Defendant" or "URP"), violated Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-2(a), by discriminating against Charging Parties Lilian Nunez, Amanda Wietting, Stephanie Coffey, Debra Neubauer, Jennifer Anderson ("Charging Parties") on the basis of sex. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Defendant, at the Louis Joliet Mall ("Joliet Mall") managed by Defendant, violated Title VII by fostering or tolerating a working environment that was hostile to female employees. URP denies these allegations. The Charging Parties are represented by private counsel and have intervened in this action.
2. In the interest ofexpeditiously resolving all disputed issues and avoiding further legal

costs and litigation, and as a result ofhaving engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree (hereafter "Decree"). This Decree fully and finally resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of the Complaint filed by the EEOC and Plaintiff-Intervenors (Charging Parties) in this action. Nothing in this Decree should be construed as an admission by any party regarding the claims or defenses of the other. The application of this Consent Decree is limited to URP's operations at the Joliet Mall.
FINDINGS 3. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions ofthis Decree, and based on the pleadings, record, and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds the following:
a. This Court has jurisdiction of the subj ect matter of this action and of the parties.
b. The terms of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable, and just. The rights of the parties and the public interest are adequately protected by this Decree.
c. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the parties, the claimants, and the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: NON-DISCRIMINATION
4. URP, its officers, agents (including management personnel), successors, and assigns are enjoined from discriminating against its employees on the basis of sex at the Joliet Mall.
2

5. Within sixty (60) days ofthe entry ofthis Decree, Defendant shall draft and distribute to all of its supervisory personnel at the Joliet Mall a policy which shall include instructions to all supervisory personnel that sexual harassment is unlawful and that they are obligated to report all complaints ofsexual harassment ofwhich they learn to their immediate supervisor. Defendant shall also draft and distribute to all of its supervisory personnel at the Joliet Mall a policy which details the manner in which complaints ofsexual harassment are to be investigated. Copies ofthese policies shall be provided to the EEOC within 60 days of the entry of this Decree.
NON-RETALIATION 6. URP, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons acting in concert with it shall not engage in any form of retaliation against any person who is currently or has previously been employed by it at the Joliet Mall because such person has opposed any practice made unlawful under Title VII, filed a Charge of Discrimination under Title VII, testified or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII, or asserted any rights under this Decree. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as limiting any obligations regarding retaliation generally imposed upon Defendant by Title VII.
MONETARY RELIEF 7. URP shall pay the gross sum of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000), inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs, to the Charging Parties, represented by the law firm ofEdes & Rosen. This amount shall be distributed in a manner and on terms separately agreed to by Defendant and by Edes & Rosen on behalf of the Charging Parties as their own private counsel. Charging Parties shall execute and provide to URP release agreements. The terms of the release agreements and the manner and timing of their delivery to URP shall be on terms separately agreed to by URP and Edes & Rosen on behalf of the Charging Parties. EEOC did not participate in the
3

negotiation or drafting of such releases and has not approved them. POSTING OF NOTICE
8. Within ten (10) business days after entry of this Decree, URP shall post same-sized copies ofthe Notice attached as Exhibit A to this Decree on all bulletin boards usually used by URP for communicating with its employees at the Joliet Mall. The Notice.shall remain posted for two (2) years from the date of entry of this Decree. Notwithstanding the foregoing and any other provisions herein to the contrary, ifURP loses its management of the Joliet Mall, its obligations under this Decree shall cease, except for its obligations under paragraph 7 and except for any disputes already raised under Paragraphs 13 and 14. URP shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. URP shall certify to the EEOC in writing within ten (10) business days after entry of the Decree that the Notice has been properly posted. URP shall permit a representative of the EEOC to enter URP's premises at the Joliet Mall for purposes of verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time during normal business hours without prior notice.
RECORD KEEPING 9. For a period oftwo (2) years following entry of this Decree, URP shall maintain and make available for inspection and copying by the EEOC records of each complaint by one of its employees of sexual harassment occurring in the Joliet Mall. Such report shall indicate the date the complaint was made, who made it, what was alleged, and what actions the Defendant took to resolve the matter. 10. URP shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 9, above, available for inspection and copying within ten (10) business days after the EEOC so requests. In addition, URP shall make available for interview all persons within its employ whom the EEOC reasonably
4

requests for purposes of verifying compliance with this Decree and shall permit a representative of the EEOC to enter URP's premises for such purposes on five (5) business days advance notice by the EEOC.
II. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed to limit any obligation URP may otherwise have to maintain records under Title VII or any other law or regulation.
REPORTING 12. URP shall furnish to the EEOC the following written reports semi-annually for a period of two (2) years following entry of this Decree. The first report shall be due six (6) months after entry ofthe Decree. The final report shall be due twenty-four (24) months after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain:
a. A summary of the information recorded by URP pursuant to Paragraph 9, including the name of the complainant, the allegation of the complaint and the action taken by Defendant in response; and,
b. A certification by URP that the Notice required to be posted in Paragraph 8, above, remained posted during the entire six (6) month period preceding the report.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 13. In the event that either party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) ofthe Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party ofthe alleged non-compliance within ninety (90) days ofthe alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party twenty (20) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied or that no non-compliance has occurred. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within twenty (20) business days, the
5

,-
complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief. The party alleging non-compliance must act in good faith in both its allegation of non-compliance and the absence of appropriate remedial measures.
DURATION OF THE DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 14. All provisions ofthis Decree shall be in effect (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree) for a period of two (2) years immediately following entry of the Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end of the two (2) years period, any dispute(s) under Paragraph 13, above, remain unresolved, the term of the Decree shall be automatically extended (solely regarding such unresolved dispute(s) and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Decree) until such time as any such dispute(s) has been resolved.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 15. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 16. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, assigns, and successors of URP in their capacities as representatives, agents, directors and officers ofURP, and not in their individual capacities, and Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenors and their respective legal representatives, agents heirs, beneficiaries, executors and assigns. This paragraph shall not be construed as placing any limit on remedies available to the Court in the event that any individual is found to be in contempt for a violation of this Decree. 17. When this Decree requires the submission by URP ofreports, certifications, notices, or other materials to the EEOC, they shall be mailed to: URP Settlement, c/o Ethan M. M. Cohen, Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois, 60661.
6

For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
Nicholas M. Inzeo Acting Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel

For Urban Retail Properties:
. Kaplan Be Golub Seyfarth Shaw 55 E. Monroe St. 42nd Floor Chicago, IL 60603

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Ch.·..">(1.>",11 (3

or Charging Parties Lilian Nunez, Amanda Wietting, Stephanie Coffey, Debra Neubauer, and Jennifer Anderson:

Eric Wright Edes & Rosen 180 N. LaSalle Chicago, IL 60601

~ r DATE;

J.-dCl]

7

The Honorable Joan B. Gottschall United States District Judge
7

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?346796756506584-L_35...
KEYS, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-06855

EEOC v. Urban Retail Prop Assigned to: Hon. Joan B. Gottschall Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/25/2002 Date Terminated: 04/04/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by John C. Hendrickson United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ethan M.M. Cohen United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7568 Email: ethan.cohen@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory M. Gochanour United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 886-9124 Email: gregory.gochanour@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noelle Christine Brennan Brennan & Monte, Ltd. 20 South Clark Street Suite 1530

1 of 6

6/5/2007 3:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?346796756506584-L_35...

V. Defendant Urban Retail Properties Co.

Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 422-0001 Email: nbrennan@brennan-monte.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Eric John Wright Association of Flight Attendants 6250 North River Road 4020 Rosemont, IL 60018 (847_292-7170 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joel H. Kaplan Seyfarth Shaw LLP 131 South Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-4205 (312) 346-8000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Beth Golub Joffe Seyfarth Shaw LLP 131 South Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-4205 (312) 460-5000 Email: bjoffe@seyfarth.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Claire I. Rosen Edes & Rosen 180 North LaSalle Street Suite 2620 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 248-8493
Stephanie Joan Pulcanio Seyfarth Shaw LLP 131 South Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-4205 (312)346-8000 Email: spulcanio@seyfarth.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 6

6/5/2007 3:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?346796756506584-L_35...

Intervenor Jennifer Anderson
Intervenor Stephanie Coffey
Intervenor Debra Neubauer
Intervenor Lilian Nunez
Intervenor ' Amanda Weitting

Date Filed

#

represented by Eric John Wright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Claire I. Rosen (See above for address)
represented by Eric John Wright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Claire I. Rosen (See above for address)
represented by Eric John Wright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Claire I. Rosen (See above for address)
represented by Eric John Wright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Claire I. Rosen (See above for address)
represented by Eric John Wright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Claire I. Rosen (See above for address)
Docket Text

3 of 6

6/5/2007 3:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?346796756506584-L_35...

09/25/2002
10/18/2002 10/21/2002
10/23/2002 10/23/2002 10/23/2002 10/28/2002 10/31/2002 11/01/2002
11/01/2002 11/22/2002
11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/25/2002 11/29/2002 12/04/2002

1 COMPLAINT; jury demand - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of John C. Hendrickson, Gregory M. Gochanour, Ethan M.M. Cohen, Noelle Christine Brennan as attorney(s) for plaintiff (No summons(es) issued.) (Documents: 1-1 through 1-3) (hp) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
2 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Joel H. Kaplan, Beth Tracey Golub. (vmj) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
3 REFERRAL ORDER of 10/21/02 The case is referred to the Hon. Arlander Keys pursuant to Local Rule 72.1 regarding discovery, settlement conference and all non dispositive pretrial motions. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
Text not available. (Entered: 10/24/2002)
4 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for intervenors' by Eric John Wright, Claire I. Rosen. (vmj) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
6 AGREED MOTION by plaintiff-intervenors to intervene ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
SCHEDULE set on 10/28/02 by Hon. Arlander Keys : Status hearing set to 9:00 12/2/02 . Mailed notice (ac) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
5 WAIVER of service of summons as to defendant Urban Retail Prop sent on 9/25/02. (vmj) (Entered: 11/01/2002)
7 MINUTE ORDER of 11/1/02 by Hon. Arlander Keys: Agreed motion to intervene by plaintiff-intervenors is granted [6-1]. Plaintiff-intervenors are given leave to file their intervenor complaint. Status hearing set for 12/2/02 is stricken and reset to 11/22/02 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
8 INTERVENORS' COMPLAINT by intervenors. (vmj) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
9 MINUTE ORDER of 11/22/02 by Hon. Arlander Keys: Status hearing held and continued to 1/15/03 at 9:00 a.m. The parties to submit an agreed discovery order by 11/29/02. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
10 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Urban Retail Prop by Stephanie Joan Pulcanio. (vmj) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
11 ANSWER and affirmative defenses by defendant Urban Retail Prop to plaintiff-interveners' complaint [8-1]. (vmj) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
12 ANSWER and affirmative defenses by defendant to plaintiff-EEOC's complaint [1-1]. (vmj) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
13 AGREED proposed discovery schedule by Ethan M Cohen; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
14 MINUTE ORDER of 12/4/02 by Hon. Arlander Keys: Status hearing held and continued to 1/15/03 at 9:00 a.m. Enter agreed discovery schedule. Rule 26 disclosures shall be made by 12/16/02; fact discovery shall be completed by 4/11/03. Plaintiff's shall designate their expert witnesses by 3/11/03 with reports due by 4/25/03. Defendant shall designate their expert witnesses by 6/16/03; with reports due 7/15/03. Expert discovery to close by 8/15/03. In the event that defendant elects to name an expert which is not in response to the naming of a

4 of 6

6/5/2007 3:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?346796756506584-L_35...

01/15/2003
03/12/2003
03/24/2003 03/31/2003 04/02/2003 04/02/2003
04/04/2003

plaintiff expert, defendant shall designate its expert(s) by 3/25/03 with reports due by 4/25/03. Plaintiff will then designate their rebuttal expert by 6/16/03 with reports due 7/15/03 and all expert discovery to close by 8/15/03. Dispositive motions shall be due 60 days from 4/11/03 in the event that no expert witness is designated and 60 days from 8/15/03 in the event that expert discovery takes place. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
15 MINUTE ORDER of 1/15/03 by Hon. Arlander Keys: Status hearing held. Settlement conference set for 3/12/03 at 10:00 a.m. All parties are to be represented at the settlement conference by an individual (other than their attorneys) with full authority to settle. The parties are to exchange (but not file) written settlement offers, copies of which are to be submitted to the court by 3/5/03. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
16 MINUTE ORDER of 3/12/03 by Hon. Arlander Keys: Extensive settlement conference held. The case settled, the terms of which were stated on the record. The settlement is pursuant to a consent decree, the drafting of which will take some time. Status hearing is set for 03/24/03 at 9:00 a.m. If the parties submit the consent decree and the settlement documents prior to this date, they need not appear and the hearing will be stricken. The court commends all parties for their diligence and willingness to compromise in order to settle this most difficult case. Mailed notice (cdy) (Entered: 03/13/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 3/24/03 by Hon. Arlander Keys : Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 3/31/03 . Mailed notice (ac) (Entered: 03/24/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 3/31/03 by Hon. Arlander Keys : Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 a.m. on 4/2/03 . A representative from the EEOC must be present. Mailed notice (ac) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
17 VOLUNTARY withdrawal by plaintiff's-intervenors. (vmj) (Entered: 04/03/2003)
19 MINUTE ORDER of 4/2/03 by Hon. Arlander Keys: Status hearing held. The parties submitted to the court an executed consent decree which will resolve this case. The Consent Decree is hereby transmitted to the district judge for her approval. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge. Terminating the case referral Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
18 MINUTE ORDER of 4/4/03 by Hon. Joan B. Gottschall : Each party to this decree shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the decree. (Entered consetn decree). Case terminated. Mailed notice (cem) (Entered: 04/07/2003)

5 of 6

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/05/2007 15:44:32

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

6/5/2007 3:43 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?346796756506584-L_35...

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:02-cv-06855

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

0.24

6 of 6

6/5/2007 3:43 PM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - APRIL 2003

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement04-03.html

EEOC v. Urban Retail Properties No. 02-C-6855 (N.D. Ill. April 4, 2003)
The Chicago District Office alleged in this title VII lawsuit that defendant, a property management company, subjected five female security guards to a sexually hostile work environment at a shopping mall managed by the company. The harassment included sexist graffiti in the workplace, sexist comments by co-workers and supervisors, and unwanted advances and touching. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $250,000 to the five claimants. Defendant (specifically including management personnel) is enjoined from discriminating against its employees on the basis of sex at the mall where the harassment occurred.

1 of 1

6/5/2007 3:45 PM