Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 1 Filed 09/28/09 Page 1 of 7

MARY JO O’NEILL AZ Bar No. 005924 1 P. DAVID LOPEZ DC Bar No. 426463

LUCILA G. ROSAS CA Bar No. 187345

2 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

3 Phoenix District Office

3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690

4 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 640-5016

5 e-mail: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov

patrick.lopez@eeoc.gov

6

lucila.rosas@eeoc.gov

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10

Equal Employment Opportunity

)

11 Commission,

)

12

)

Plaintiff,

)

13

)

14

vs.

)

)

15 Creative Networks L.L.C., an Arizona )

16 corporation,

)

)

17

Defendant.

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

18
NATURE OF THE ACTION
19

20
21 This is an action under Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

22 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on

23 the basis of disability and to provide appropriate relief to Rochelle Duran (“Ms. Duran”)
24
and a class of similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such
25
26 practices. Ms. Duran has Sensorineural hearing loss and is hearing impaired. Despite this

27 disability, Ms. Duran seeks to be a productive member of society, which includes
28

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 1 Filed 09/28/09 Page 2 of 7

1 working. As alleged with greater particularity below, the Commission alleges Defendant

2 Creative Networks L.L.C. (“Defendant” or “Creative Networks”) discriminated against

3 Ms. Duran and a class of similarly situated, disabled individuals, because of their
4
disability, hearing impairment, by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation during
5
6 pre-employment training and pre-employment orientation, and thereby failing to hire

7 them and discriminating against them, based on their disabilities, during the hiring
8
process in violation of Section 102 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12112(a). Additionally,
9
10 Defendant maintained a policy that is a per se violation of the ADA and has the impact of

11 not hiring or excluding hearing impaired applicants.

12

13

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

14

15 1337, 1343 and 1345. Th is action is authorized and ins tituted pursuant to Section 107(a)

16 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which
17
incorporates by reference 42 U.S.C. Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of T itle VII of the Civil
18
19 Rights Act of 1964 (“Title V II”), §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), a nd pursuant to Section 102 of

20 the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.

21
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being
22
23 committed within the juri sdiction of the United States Dist rict Court for the District of

24 Arizona.

25

PARTIES

26

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employmen t Opportunity Commission (the

27

“Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the
28

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 1 Filed 09/28/09 Page 3 of 7

1 administration, interpretation, and enforcemen t of Title I of the ADA and is expressly

2 authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a),

3 which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
4
5(f)(1).
5

6

4. At all relevant times, Defendant Creative Networks has continuously bee n

7 an Arizona corporation doing business in th e State of Arizona and has continuously ha d

8
at least fifteen (15) employees.
9

10

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Creative Networks has continuously bee n

11 an employer engaged in an industry aff ecting commerce under S ection 101(5) of the
12
ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5), and Section 101( 7) of t he ADA, 42 U.S. C. § 12111(7),
13
14 which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) of T itle VII, 42 U.S.C.

15 §§ 2000e(g) and (h).
16
6. At all relevant times , Defendant has been a c overed entity under Section
17
18 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2).

19
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

20

7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ms. Duran filed

21
a charge with the Commission alleging viola tions of Title I of the ADA by Defendant
22
23 Creative Networks. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been

24 fulfilled.

25

8. Ms. Duran is hearing impaired and is substantially limited in one or more

26

major life activities, including but not limited to the major lif e activity of hearing. Ms.
27

28 Duran is a person with a disability as defined by the ADA.

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 1 Filed 09/28/09 Page 4 of 7

1

9. On or about April 2005, Ms. Duran applied for a Caregiver, Caretaker,

2 and/or Direct Support Professional position with Defendant Creative Networks.

3

10. Ms. Duran was capable of performing the essential functions of the

4

Caregiver, Caretaker and/or Direct Support Professional position with or without
5

6 reasonable accommodation

7

11. Since at least 2005, Defendant has required that job applicants for

8
Caregiver, Caretaker and/or Direct Support Professionals, including Ms. Duran, to
9

10 complete 24 or more hours of pre-employment orientation and training.

11

12. Since at least 2005, Defendant Creative Networks has had a policy or

12
practice of denying accommodations costing greater than $200 for interpreting services
13

14 for hearing impaired applicants to complete pre-employment orientation and training.

15

13. Since at least 2005, Defendant Creative Networks has engaged in unlawful

16
employment practices at its , Arizona facility, in violation of Section 102 of Title I and in
17

18 violation of Title V of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and 12112(b)(5). These unlawful

19 employment practices include but are not limited to the following:

20
A. Failure to reasonably accommodate and failure to hire Ms. Duran and the

21

class because of Respondent’s rigid policy or practice of limiting

22

accommodations to $200.

23
B. Failure to hire Ms. Duran and a cl ass of sim ilarly situated indivi duals

24

because of their disability, hearing impairment

25

C. Maintaining a policy that is a per se violation of the AD A and has the

26

impact of not hiring or excluding hearing impaired applicants.

27

28

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 1 Filed 09/28/09 Page 5 of 7

1

14. The effect of the policies and practic es complained of in paragraph 13 (A)-

2 (C) above has been to deprive Ms. Duran and a class of sim ilarly situated individuals of

3 equal employment opport unities and otherwise preventing or adversely affecting their
4
ability to be hired, because of their disability.
5

6

15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 13 (A)-(C)

7 above were and are intentional.
8
16. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 13 (A)-(C)
9
10 above were and are done with malice or with reckless i ndifference to the federally

11 protected rights of Ms. Duran and a class of similarly situated individuals.

12

13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

14

15

A. Grant a permanent inj unction enjoining Defendant Creative Networks, its

16 officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it,
17
from engaging in dis ability discrimination and any other employment practice which
18
19 discriminates on the basis of disability.

20

B. Order Defendant Creative Networks to institute and carry out policies,

21
practices, and programs which provide eq ual employment opportunities for qualified
22
23 individuals with disabilities, and which erad icate the effects o f its past and present

24 unlawful employment practices.

25

C. Order Defendant Creative Networks to make whole Ms. Duran and a class

26

of similarly situated indi viduals by provid ing appropriate backpay with pr ejudgment
27

28 interest, in am ounts to be dete rmined at trial, and other a ffirmative relief necessary to

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 1 Filed 09/28/09 Page 6 of 7

1 eradicate the effects of its unlawful employ ment practices, including but not limited to

2 rightful place instatement of Ms. Duran or, in the alternative, frontpay.

3

D. Order Defendant Creative Networks to make whole Ms. Duran and a class

4

of similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary
5

6 losses resulting from the unlawf ul employment practices described in paragraph 13 (A)-

7 (C) above, includi ng medical expenses not covered by Creative Networ k’s employee

8
benefit plan, in amounts to be determined at trial.
9

10

E. Order Defendant Creative Networks to make whole Ms. Duran and a class

11 of similarly situated indi viduals by pr oviding compensation for past and future non-
12
pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 13
13
14 (A)-(C) above, including emotional pain, sufferi ng, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of

15 life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
16
F. Order Defendant Creative Networks to pay Ms. Dur an and a class of
17
18 similarly situated individuals punitive damage s for its malicious and reckless conduct, as

19 described in paragraph 13 (A)-(C) above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
20
G. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in t he
21
22 public interest.

23

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

24

25

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

26

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

27

complaint.
28

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 1 Filed 09/28/09 Page 7 of 7

1

2

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 28th day of September, 2009.

3

4

JAMES L. LEE

5

Acting General Counsel

6

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

7

Associate General Counsel

8

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

9

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

131 M Street NE, 5th Floor

10

Washington, DC 20507 0004

11

s/ Mary Jo O’Neill_____________

12

MARY JO O’NEILL

13

Regional Attorney

s/ P. David Lopez__

14

P. DAVID LOPEZ

15

Supervisory Trial Attorney

16

_s/Lucila G. Rosas_____

17

LUCILA G. ROSAS

TrialAttorney

18

19

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

20

3300 North Central Ave., Suite 690

21

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2504

Attorneys for Plaintiff

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 1-1 Filed 09/28/09 Page 1 of 1

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Creative Networks, LLC

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 1-2 Filed 09/28/09 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 02/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
__________ District of __________

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Plaintiff
v. Creative Networks, LLC
Defendant

) ) ) ) Civil Action No. ) ) )

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) C/O C T CORPORATION SYSTEM 2394 E CAMELBACK RD PHOENIX, AZ 85016

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 20 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 1-2 Filed 09/28/09 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 02/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

0.00

.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

Print

Save As...

Reset

 
 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

11 Equal Employment Opportunity

)

12 Commission,

)

)

13

Plaintiff,

)

)

14

vs.

)

) 15 Creative Networks, L.L.C., an Arizona )

16 L.L.C.,

) )

17

Defendants.

)

)

18

)

Case No.: CV 09-02023-PHX-DAE CONSENT DECREE

19

20
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Comtnission (the
21
22 "Commission" or "EEOC") filed this action against Creative Networks, Inc., an Arizona

23 L.L.C., to enforce Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
24
§12101, et seq., as amended ("the ADA"). In the Complaint, the Commission alleged
25
26 that Defendant discriminated against Rochelle Duran (Ms. Duran) because of her

27 disability, by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation during pre-employment
28
training and pre-employment orientation, and thereby failing to hire her and

-1-

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 187 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 18

1 discriminating against her, based on her disabilities, during the hiring process in violation
2 of Section 102 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12112(a). The Commission further alleged, inter
3
alia, that Defendant had a rigid policy or practice of limiting accommodations to $200 fo
4
24 hours of required training, which is a per se violation of the ADA and had the impact
5
6 of not hiring or excluding hearing impaired applicants.

7

The Parties do not object to the jurisdiction of the Court over this action and waive

8
their rights to a jury trial and the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
9

10

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

11

1. This Decree resolves all claims of the Commission against Defendant,

12
including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, interest and injunctive relief,
13

14 arising out of the issues in this lawsuit.

15

INJUNCTION

16
2. Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all
17

18 persons in active concert or participation with it, both at the time that this Decree

19 becotnes effective and for the duration of this Decree, are permanently enjoined from (1)
20
engaging in any employment practice which unlawfully discriminates against an
21
22 applicant covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, on the basis of
23 disability and from (2) retaliating against any applicant because he or she: (i) opposes or
24
opposed discriminatory practices made unlawful by the ADA; (ii) files or filed a charge
25
of discrimination or assists, assisted, participates, or participated in the filing of a charge
26
27 of disability discrimination; or (iii) assists, assisted, participates or participated in an
28 investigation or proceeding brought under the federal laws prohibiting disability

-2-

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 187 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 18

discrimination or retaliation.

2

MONETARY RELIEF

3

3. Judgment is entered in favor of the Commission and against Creative

4

Networks in the amount of$57,500.00. Defendant shall pay a gross sum of$57,500.00
5

6 to Ms. Duran. This gross sum includes $14,375.00 in settletnent ofbackpay and

7 $43,125.00 in settlement of compensatory damages. The gross sum provided to Ms.
8
Duran shall be paid no later than fourteen days from the Court's entry of the Consent
9
10 Decree. Defendant shall pay each the amount specified by the Commission and send it to

11 Ms. Duran at the address supplied by the EEOC. Within three business days of the
12
issuance of the payment, Defendant shall submit a copy of the payment instrument and
13
14 all related correspondence to Mary Jo O'Neill, Regional Attorney, Equal Employment

15 Opportunity Commission, 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona

16
85012.
17

18

4. Defendant shall not condition the receipt of individual relief on Ms.

19 Duran's agreement to (a) maintain as confidential the terms of this decree or the factual
20
allegations giving rise to the charge of discrimination, (b) waive her statutory right to file
21
22 a charge with any federal or state anti-discrimination agency, or (c) waive her right to

23 apply for a position with the Defendant.

24

5. Defendant shall pay all payroll taxes it owes on the $14,375.00 in back

25

wages for the tax year during which payment is made. Defendant will be responsible for
26

27 paying the employer's share ofFUTA and FICA taxes and the amount shall not be taken

28 from the settlement atnount. Defendant will issue Ms. Duran a W-2 for the back wage

-3-

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 187 Filed 09/19/13 Page 4 of 18

1 amount. Ms. Duran will provide Defendant with a W-4, W-9, and an A-4, within three

2 days of the entry of the Consent Decree, and Defendant will calculate any payroll taxes

3
owed by Ms. Duran based on the W-4, W-9, and A-4 provided by Ms. Duran. Defendant
4
shall make no deductions from the $43,125.00 amount set forth as compensatory
5

6 damages. Defendant shall issue a United States Internal Revenue Service Form 1099 to

7 Ms. Duran for the remaining $43, 125~00 of the gross sum for the tax year during which
8
payment is made.
9

10

OTHER RELIEF

11

6. Defendant shall expunge from Ms. Duran's file: (a) all references to the

12
charge of discrimination filed against Defendant that formed the basis of this action; (b)
13

14 all references to Ms. Duran's participation in this action; and (c) any documents which

15 relate to complaints by Ms. Duran or investigation of Ms. Duran's complaints of

16
unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability.
17

18

7. Defendant shall institute and carry out policies and practices that help

19 assure a work environment free of discrimination based on disability and fully compliant
20
with the requirements of the ADA, including the requirement of engaging in the
21
22 interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations.

23

NOTICE

24

8. For the duration of this Decree, Defendant shall post the Notice attached as

25

26 Exhibit A in a prominent place frequented by its applicants and employees at its facilities.

27 The Notice shall be posted in English and shall be the same type, style, and size as set

28 forth in Exhibit A.

-4-

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 187 Filed 09/19/13 Page 5 of 18

1

ACCOMMODATIONS

2

9. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Decree, Defendant shall instruct

3 all employees in the Staff Developtnent and Training department and all supervisory and
4
managerial employees, through interoffice memoranda and through email, that they are
5

6 required to consult with and seek assistance from the Regional HR Director when

7 responding to requests and/or apparent needs for reasonable accommodations, when
8
responding to allegations of denials of reasonable accommodations, and when responding
9
1o to complaints of discrimination on the basis of disability.

11

10. Defendant will not implement, reinstate, or adopt any policy or practice of

12
categorically limiting accommodations and/or capping the monetary amount it will spend
13

14 or incur to provide accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities. This

15 includes, but is not limited to, the elimination of Defendant's policy and/or practice of
16
limiting accommodations to $200 for sign-language-interpreter services for hearing-
17
18 impaired applicants and the elimination of any other monetary limitations imposed on

19 accommodations for Defendant's 24-hours of required training to become a Direct

20
Support Professional and/or Caregiver.

21

22

11. Within thirty (30) days after the entry of this decree, Defendant shall inform

23 all employees and managers through inter-office mail and email that (1) it has eliminated

24
all policies and/or practices of capping the monetary amount of accommodations it will
25
provide to qualified individuals with disabilities, and (2) it has eliminated the policy
26

21 and/or practice of limiting accommodations to $200 for sign-language-interpreter

28 services

-5-

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 187 Filed 09/19/13 Page 6 of 18

12. Defendant shall provide reasonable accommodations, including, but not

2 limited to, sign language interpreters, to all applicants with disabilities who are required
3 to complete any orientations or trainings, including but not limited to Defendant's 24
4
hours of required training to become a Direct Support Professional and/or Caregiver. As
5
6 part of this requirement, Defendant shall provide alternative arrangements for applicants

7 with disabilities to complete the 24-hour training to become a Direct Support Professiona
8
or Caregiver if, because of their disabilities and/or need for accommodation, they are
9
10 unable to do so within a group setting and/or within four, six-hour training sessions.

11 Defendant shall also provide a handout (attached as Exhibit B) during all applicant
12
orientations and trainings explaining applicants' rights to request a reasonable
13
14 accommodation under the ADA and providing information about how to request an

15 accommodation during the application and hiring process.

16
POLICIES/PROCEDURES
17

18

13. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Decree, Defendant shall develop

19 written policies, or revise existing policies, concerning discrimination on the basis of
20
disability to conform with the law, and shall submit copies of the policies to the Regional
21
22 Attorney of the Phoenix District Office of the EEOC at the address provided in paragraph

23 three above. The written policies must include at a minimum:

24

A. A strong and clear commitment to a workplace free of

25

discrimination based on disability.
26

27

B. A statement that all applicants with disabilities may request a

28

reasonable accommodation.

-6-

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 187 Filed 09/19/13 Page 7 of 18

C. A clear and easy procedure for applicants to follow

2

when requesting accommodations. The procedure shall provide more than one

3
option for applicants to request accommodations, including but not limited to the
4
following:
5

6

(1) providing applicants the Director of Operations/General Manager's

7

contact information (including telephone number and email address) in

8
order to request accommodations, to report denials of accommodations, or
9

10

to report discrimination on the basis of disability, and

11

(2) allowing applicants to request an accommodation from any employee o

12
Defendant's who is involved in the hiring process, including but not limited
13

14

to managers.

15

D. A clear procedure for supervisory, management and Staff

16
Development and Training employees to follow when receiving requests for
17

18

accommodation and attempting to obtain approval of requests for accommodation.

19

Under this procedure, these employees and managers shall be required to seek

20
assistance from the Director of Operations/General Manager when responding to
21

22

requests and/or apparent needs for reasonable accommodations, as set forth under

23

paragraph 12.

24
E. A mandatory obligation that Defendant must engage in the

25

26

interactive process with applicants who request an accommodation and/or have an

27

apparent need for accommodation. Defendant shall individually assess the needs

28

of each applicant during the interactive process and shall maintain flexibility in

-7-

providing reasonable accommodations.

2

F. A requirement that Defendant shall protect the confidentiality of all

3
information regarding employees' and applicants' medical information and
4
requests for accommodation to the extent possible and will not share information
5

6

relating to complaints of disability discrimination (including failure to provide

7

reasonable accommodations), and retaliation unnecessarily in conformance with

8
the National Labor Relations Act. Nothing herein precludes Defendant from
9

10

disclosing such information in any legal, equitable, legislative, or regulatory

11

proceeding.

12
G. A requirement that Defendant shall respond to reasonable
13

14

accommodation requests promptly, fairly, reasonably, and effectively.

15

H. A requirement that, upon receiving a request for accommodation or

16
becoming aware of an apparent need for reasonable accommodation, Defendant
17

18

shall:

19

(1) document the date and time when the request for accommodation was

20
received or the date and time when Defendant became aware of the

21

22

apparent need for accommodation, and

23

(2) document in detail the applicant's need for reasonable accommodation,

24
the nature of the request for reasonable accommodation, every step taken
25
during the interactive process, all efforts made by Defendant to provide a
26

27

reasonable accommodation, and Defendant's response to the request for

28

accommodation.

-8-

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 187 Filed 09/19/13 Page 9 of 18

I. A strong and clear statement advising persons who believe they have

2

been discriminated against on the basis of disability to come forward.

3

J. A description of the disciplinary consequences, up to and including

4

termination, that may be imposed upon violators of the policy.
5

6

K. An assurance of non-retaliation against persons and witnesses who

7

report to Defendant that they believe they or other applicants have been subjected

8
to unlawful discrimination and/or who have asked for reasonable
9

10

accommodations.

11

14. The policies described in paragraph thirteen shall be distributed to all of

12
Defendant's employees within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Decree.
13

14

TRAINING

15

15. For the duration of this decree, Defendant shall require all its employees

16
located in Arizona (as well as any other employee with human resources responsibilities
17

18 for its Arizona locations) to attend training regarding the ADA, reasonable

19 accommodation, the mandatory interactive process, and Defendant's policies regarding
20
these items (as described in paragraph thirteen). Regional HR Directors and employees
21
22 who work in Human Resources or Staff Development and Training positions shall

23 receive additional training on the requirements of the ADA, the employer's obligation to
24
engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations in the absence
25
of an undue burden, instructions on how to engage in the interactive process to identify a
26
27 reasonable accommodation, Defendant's policies and procedures regarding these topics
28 (as set forth in paragraph thirteen), and their respective roles in implementing and

-9-

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 187 Filed 09/19/13 Page 10 of 18

1 following those policies and procedures. Each training session shall include time for

2 questions and answers. The length and content of the training shall comport with

3 subsections (A), (B), and (C) below.
4
A. REGIONAL HR DIRECTOR TRAINING~ Defendant shall ensure that the
5

6

Regional HR Director attends at least two (2) hours of live, in-person training on

7

the topics set forth above. The Regional HR Director shall also attend the

8
trainings set forth in subsections (B) and (C) of this paragraph.
9

10

B. EMPLOYEES WHO WORK IN HUMAN RESOURCES OR STAFF

11

DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING POSITIONS: Defendant shall ensure that all

12
individuals who work in a human resources and/or staff development and training
13

14

positions receive at least 1 ( 1) hours of live, in-person on the topics set forth

15

above. These individuals shall also attend the training set forth in subsection (C)

16
of this paragraph.
17

18

C. ALL EMPLOYEES: Defendant shall ensure that all of its employees,

19

supervisors, officers, directors, and human resources and staff

20
development/training personnel attend at least one (I) hours of live, in-person

21

22

training (or view a recording of a live seminar). In addition to the topics set forth

23

above, this training shall review and explain all aspects of the ADA and

24
Defendant's related policies, including but not limited to nondiscrimination in
25
hiring, Defendant's procedures to request and provide reasonable accommodations
26

27

to applicants, the rights and responsibilities of applicants and employers during the

28

interactive process, awareness of issues affecting applica~ts with disabilities,

-10-

1

common accommodations for hearing-impaired individuals, and evaluating

2

whether accommodations are effective at addressing the needs of applicants with

3

disabilities.

4

5

16. Defendant shall ensure that the training sessions required under paragraph

6 fifteen take place within six months of the entry of this Decree and at least annually

7 thereafter. New employees shall complete the initial training required under paragraph
8
fifteen within sixty (60) days· of their hire.
9

10

17. Defendant shall require all its employees to register when they attend a

11 training seminar required by paragraph fifteen and shall retain all such registries of

12
attendance for the duration of this Decree.
13

14

18. All trainings conducted pursuant to paragraph fifteen shall be facilitated by a

15 vendor or vendors not affiliated with Defendant, and Defendant shall obtain the EEOC's
16
approval of the consultants/lecturers it selects to provide the training described below. At
17
18 least sixty (60) days prior to each proposed training seminar, Defendant shall submit the

19 name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), and resume(s) of the proposed
20
consultant/lecturer(s), along with the dates of the proposed training seminar(s) and an
21
22 outline of the contents of the training, to the Regional Attorney of the Phoenix District

23 Office of the EEOC, at the address provided in paragraph three above. The Commission
24 shall have thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the information described above to
25
accept or reject the proposed consultant/lecturer(s). The Commission shall also have the
26

27 right to designate Commission representatives to attend and fully participate in any and

28 all of the training sessions required under paragraph fifteen.

- 11 -

1

REPORTING BY DEFENDANT AND ACCESS BY EEOC

2

19. Defendant shall report in writing to the Regional Attorney of the

3
Commission's Phoenix District Office, at the address provided in paragraph three above,
4
beginning six months from the date of the entry of this Decree, and thereafter every year
5
a for the duration of the Decree, the following information:

7

A. A copy of the revised policies and procedures required in paragraphs

8
nine through thirteen of this Decree.
9

10

B. Any changes, modifications, revocations, or revisions to its policies

11 and procedures described in paragraphs nine through thirteen above which concern or

12
affect the subjects of unlawful discrimination based on disability.
13

14

c. Verification that Defendant has implemented the accommodations

15 practices and procedures set forth in paragraphs nine through twelve.
16
D. The name, address, position, social security number, and telephone
17
18 number of any individual who has brought allegations, whether formal or informal, of

19 discrimination on the basis of disability and/or denial of reasonable accommodations
20
against Defendant's personnel including, but not limited to, management officials and/or
21
22 non-management employees, during the first six months, and thereafter every year,

23 preceding the report to the EEOC. Defendant shall also state the nature of the complaint,
24
investigatory efforts made by Defendant, and corrective action taken, if any.
25
E. The registries of persons attending the training seminars required in
26
27 paragraph fifteen of this Decree and a list identifying: (1) the current Regional HR

28 Director employed by Defendant and the hours of training completed; (2) the current

- 12-

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 187 Filed 09/19/13 Page 13 of 18

Human Resources and Staff Development and Training personnel employed by

2 Defendant and the hours of training they completed, and (3) all current employees of

3
Defendant on the days of the seminar training sessions described in paragraph fifteen (C)
4
above.
5

6

F. Confirmation that (1) the Notice required in paragraph eight of this

7 Decree was posted in English, and the locations where it was posted; (2) the policies
8
required in paragraph thirteen was distributed to each current and new employee of
9
10 Defendant, and posted; and (3) that Exhibit B has been added to the materials provided to

11 applicants.
12
20. The Commission, upon reasonable notice and agreement, shall have the
13
14 right to enter and inspect Defendant's premises and work sites to ensure compliance with

15 this Decree.

16
COSTS AND DURATION
17

18

21. Each Party shall bear its costs and attorney's fees incurred as a result of this

19 action through the filing of this Decree.
20
22. The duration of this Decree shall be two (2) years from its entry. This
21
22 Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the duration of the Decree, during

23 which the Commission may petition this Court for compliance with this Decree. Should
24
the Court determine that Defendant has not complied with this Decree, the Court may
25
order appropriate relief, including extension of this Decree for such period as may be
26
27 necessary to remedy its non-compliance, an award of attorney's fees and costs, and fines
28 for contempt of court.

- 13-

23. Absent extension, this Decree shall expire by its own terms at the end oftw

2 (2) years from the date of entry without further action by the Parties.

3

24. The Parties agree to entry of this Decree and judgment subject to fiaal

approval by the Court.
5

e SO ORDERED.

~_,/

7

Dated this tf_, da';}f· 2013.

8

9 10

11
APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO THIS
12

FOR THE EEOC:

\

. Todd McKay, Es .

Renaud Cook

Mesaros, P.

Phelps Dodge 21 One North Central Ave., Suite 900

22 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4417

Attorneys for Defendants

23 24

~Ab:==:

25 Megan Neal, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS/ GENERAL

26 MANAGER

27

Creative Networks, L.L.C. Phoenix, Arizona ~

20

8fJo a l

Supervisory Trial Attorney
·lUJ rv\J;~~ lhl&.eva..tt
HILLARY K. V. LDERRAMA Trial Attorney
~t+~
CHRISTOPHER HOUK Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COM1v1ISSIOt~ Phoenix District Office 3300 N. Central Ave., Suite 690

- 14 -

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 187 Filed 09/19/13 Page 15 of 18
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 187 Filed 09/19/13 Page 16 of 18
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF CREATIVE NETWORKS L.L.C.
It is unlawful under federal law, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq., as amended ("the ADA"), and state law to discriminate against an employee on the basis of disability, including failing to provide a reasonable accommodation or otherwise discriminating against applicants or employees with disabilities in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training for applicants and employees, and other terms and conditions of employment. Discrimination under the ADA includes denying employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, based on the need to make reasonable accommodations for the disabled employee or applicant. It is also unlawful to retaliate against any person because the person protested discriminatory practices or contacted the EEOC.
Creative Networks shall not discriminate against any employee on the basis of disability, including failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and shall not retaliate against any applicant or employee for complaining about discrimination.
If you believe you have been discriminated against or denied a reasonable accommodation, you have the right to seek assistance from:
(1) EEOC, 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 640-5000 TTY: (602) 640-5072 Website (national): www.eeoc.gov; or
(2) Arizona Civil Rights Division ("ACRD") of the Attorney General's Office 1275 W. Washington, Phoenix, Arizona, 85007 Telephone: (602) 542-5263 TDD: (602) 542-5002 Toll Free: (877) 491-5742 Toll Free TDD: (877) 624-8090
You have the right to file a charge with the EEOC or ACRD if you believe you are being discriminated against, retaliated against or denied a reasonable accommodation.
No Retaliation Clause. It is against the law for any action to be taken against you by any supervisory or management official of Creative Networks for: (1) opposing disability discrimination, a failure to reasonably accommodate, or other discriminatory practices made unlawful by federal or state law; (2) filing a charge or assisting or participating in the filing of a charge of discrimination; or (3) assisting or participating in an investigation or proceeding brought under the ADA. Should any such retaliatory actions be taken against you, you should immediately contact the EEOC or the ACRD at the addresses or telephone numbers listed above.

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 187 Filed 09/19/13 Page 17 of 18
EXHIBITB

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 187 Filed 09/19/13 Page 18 of 18
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS ABOUT AVAILABILITY OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
Under federal law, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended in 2008, employers (such as Creative Networks) must provide reasonable accommodations for applicants with disabilities who need them to apply for a job or to work. "Reasonable accommodations" can include sign language interpretation for orientation and training, as well as other accommodations.
If you require an interpreter or any other accommodation due to your disability at any time, please request the accommodation from any Creative Networks employee. You may also request an accommodation from Creative Networks' Director of Operations/General Manager, Megan Neal, by telephone at (623) 780-0053 or by email at mneal@rescare.com. Creative Networks is strongly committed to individually assessing the needs of each applicant and maintaining flexibility in providing reasonable accommodations.
906725_1

 
 Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 112 Filed 04/08/11 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

CREATIVE NETWORKS, L.L.C., )

an Arizona corporation,

)

)

Defendant.

)

_____________________________ )

CV. NO. 09-02023 DAE

ORDER: (1) GRANTING CREATIVE NETWORKS’ RULE 56(d) REQUEST; (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE EEOC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (3) SETTING RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
In accordance with Local Rule 7.2(f), the Court finds this matter
suitable for disposition without a hearing. After reviewing the motion and the
supporting and opposing memoranda, the Court GRANTS Creative Networks’
Rule 56(d) Request (Doc. # 105) and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the
EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 100). The Court also
SETS a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference.
On September 28, 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (the “EEOC”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Creative

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 112 Filed 04/08/11 Page 2 of 7
Networks, L.L.C. (“Creative Networks”), pursuant to Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. (Doc. # 1.) The EEOC brought this lawsuit “to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability and to provide appropriate relief to Rochelle Duran . . . and a class of similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices.” (Id.) The EEOC asserts that, since at least 2005, Creative Networks has required applicants for the position of Caregiver, Caretaker, and/or Direct Support Professional to complete twenty-four or more hours of pre-employment orientation and training. (Id. ¶ 11.) Despite this, the EEOC asserts that, since this same time, Creative Networks has had a “policy or practice of denying accommodations costing greater than $200 for interpreting services for hearing impaired applicants,” such as Rochelle Duran (“Duran”), to complete this training. (Id. ¶ 12.)
As a result, the EEOC contends that Creative Networks has engaged in the following unlawful employment practices:
A. Failure to reasonably accommodate and failure to hire . . . Duran and the class because of [Creative Networks’] rigid policy or practice of limiting accommodation to $200
B. Failure to hire . . . Duran and a class of similarly situated individuals because of their disability, hearing impairment
2

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 112 Filed 04/08/11 Page 3 of 7
C. Maintaining a policy that is a per se violation of the ADA and has the impact of not hiring or excluding hearing impaired applicants
(Id. ¶ 13.) On January 14, 2011, the EEOC filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on its failure to hire and failure to accommodate claims for Duran and on its claim that the alleged policy limiting sign language interpreter services to $200 is unlawful. (Doc. # 100.) The EEOC also filed a Statement of Facts in support of its motion. (Doc. # 101.)
On February 16, 2011, Creative Networks filed a request that the Court deny the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56(d) (the “Rule 56(d) Request”) on the basis that the parties require more time to conduct “class discovery.”1 (“Rule 56(d) Req.,” Doc. # 105.) The EEOC filed an Opposition to the Rule 56(d) Request on March 7, 2011. (“Opp’n,” Doc. # 107.) Creative Networks filed a Reply on March 17, 2011. (“Reply,” Doc. # 110.)
1 Such a request was previously within the purview of Rule 56(f). The 2010 Amendments to Rule 56, effective December 1, 2010, moved the provisions of subdivision (f) to subdivision (d) without substantial change. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee’s note to 2010 Amendments.
3

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 112 Filed 04/08/11 Page 4 of 7
A party requesting a continuance, denial, or other order under Rule 56(d) must demonstrate: “(1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the soughtafter facts are essential to oppose summary judgment.” Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). “The burden is on the party seeking additional discovery to proffer sufficient facts to show that the evidence sought exists, and that it would prevent summary judgment.” Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1151, 1161 n.6 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Tatum v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). The moving party must also show that it was diligent in pursuing its previous discovery opportunities. See Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994). Failing to meet this burden “is grounds for the denial” of a Rule 56(d) motion. Pfingston v. Ronan Eng. Co., 284 F.3d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 2002).
The instant Rule 56(d) Request stems, at least in part, from the parties’ dispute regarding the logistics of sending out a mailing to identify potential class members. On June 14, 2010, U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton directed counsel for the EEOC to submit to defense counsel a proposed letter that would be
4

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 112 Filed 04/08/11 Page 5 of 7
mailed to prior Creative Networks applicants, in an attempt to identify other class members. (Doc. # 45.) On July 19, 2010, Judge Bolton instructed counsel to confer and prepare an agreed-upon letter. (Doc. # 52.) On November 8, 2010, Judge Bolton ordered each party to file their proposed applicant letter with the Court (Doc. # 94), and on November 10, 2010, Judge Bolton selected the EEOC’s proposed letter and ordered that it be sent to the prior applicants (Doc. # 95). Thereafter, the EEOC mailed the letter, and on January 31, 2011, the EEOC disclosed to Creative Networks the names of six class members. (Doc. # 104.) Meanwhile, the EEOC filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on January 14, 2011, in accordance with the Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling Order, which set January 14, 2011 as the deadline for filing dispositive motions. (Doc. # 27 ¶ L.)
The EEOC urges the Court to deny the Rule 56(d) Request, and emphasizes that, although it asserts failure to hire and failure to accommodate claims on behalf of Duran and a class of similarly situated individuals, it moves for summary judgment only as to Duran on these claims. (Opp’n at 7–8.) According to the EEOC, there is no need for additional discovery on the issues in the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Conversely, Creative Networks stresses that, in addition to its failure to hire and failure to accommodate claims for Duran, the EEOC also moved for
5

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 112 Filed 04/08/11 Page 6 of 7
summary judgment on its claim that Creative Networks had a “rigid” policy limiting accommodations to $200 in violation of the ADA. (Rule 56(d) Req. Ex. 2, Declaration of N. Todd McKay (“McKay Decl.”); Reply at 5–6.) Creative Networks asserts that “fundamental questions and issues” exist as to whether it ever had such a policy, and whether this purported policy affected other applicants. (Reply at 6.) In his declaration, Creative Networks’ counsel explains that the disclosure of six potential class members could lead to discoverable information on this issue. (McKay Decl. ¶¶ 5–6.)
Based on these facts, and because Creative Networks has complied with the requirements of Rule 56(d), the Court is inclined to deny the EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment without prejudice so that the parties may conduct additional discovery. Contrary to the EEOC’s contention, the circumstances surrounding the six identified class members could be highly relevant to the issue of whether Creative Networks indeed had a policy limiting accommodations to $200. Because of the delay in mailing the letter to the prior applicants, which resulted through no fault of either party, the names of these six class members were only recently disclosed. Although the Court recognizes the EEOC’s effort to comply with the Scheduling Order, and its diligence in disclosing the class members’ names, the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is simply
6

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 112 Filed 04/08/11 Page 7 of 7
premature at this time. The Court in its discretion is denying this motion without prejudice under Rule 56(d), rather than providing Creative Networks more time to respond, because as a result of additional discovery, the EEOC may wish to file a new or different motion or it may decide to not file one at all.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Creative Networks’ Rule 56(d) Request (Doc. # 105) and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 100). Additionally, in accordance with the parties’ request, the Court SETS a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, as well as a status conference, at the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona on May 3, 2011 at 9:45am MST.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 8, 2011.
_____________________________ David Alan Ezra United States District Judge
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Creative Networks, L.L.C., Cv. No. 09-02023 DAE; ORDER: (1) GRANTING CREATIVE NETWORKS’ RULE 56(d) REQUEST; (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE EEOC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (3) SETTING RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
7

 
 Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 1 of 41

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

CREATIVE NETWORKS, L.L.C., )

an Arizona corporation,

)

)

Defendant.

)

_____________________________ )

CV. NO. 09-02023 DAE

ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT On May 18, 2012, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. # 124) and Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. # 126). Meenoo Chahbazi, Esq., Hillary K. Valderrama, Esq., and Mary Jo O’Neill, Esq., appeared at the hearing on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”); N. Todd McKay, Esq., appeared at the hearing on behalf of Defendant Creative Networks, L.L.C. (“Creative Networks”). After reviewing the motions and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 2 of 41
BACKGROUND I. Factual Background
This case arises out of allegations of discrimination against disabled individuals in violation of Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Rochelle Duran (“Duran”) has experienced hearing impairment since she was born (“Duran Depo.,” Doc. # 125-2 at 8:8–9), and was diagnosed with “severe [hearing] loss bilaterally” when she was 12 years old (“Muller Report,” Doc. # 125-3 at 7). In 2005, she was diagnosed with “severe to profound sensory-neural hearing loss.” (Doc. # 125-4.) On or about April 6, 2005, Duran contacted Creative Networks to apply for a Direct Support Professional position. (Duran Depo. at 561:11–23; “Def’s Initial Discl.,” Doc. # 125-15 at 2.) Rosemary Padilla (“Padilla”), a Staff Development Administrative Assistant at Creative Networks, informed Duran that she would be required to complete orientation and pre-employment training as part of the application process. (“EEOC SOF,” Doc. # 125 ¶ 18; “CN CASF,” Doc. # 131 ¶ 18; Doc. # 25-15 at 2.) According to Duran, she requested an interpreter for the orientation and was told that Creative Networks would not provide an interpreter for the orientation but that it would provide an interpreter for training. (Duran Depo. at 63:18–25.) Duran states that when she arrived at the orientation,
2

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 3 of 41
an instructor verbally provided information to a group of applicants, and she was unable to understand most of what was said. (Id. at 64:1–7.)
The parties do not dispute that Duran completed a written job application at or around the time of the orientation, and that Eva Sankey (“Sankey”), another Staff Development Administrative Assistant, called Duran to inform her that Sankey had reviewed her employment application and that she wanted Duran to come in for pre-employment training. (EEOC SOF ¶¶ 22–23; CN CASF ¶¶ 22–23.) Duran told Sankey that she would need a sign language interpreter for the training, and Sankey responded that she would need to talk to her supervisor, but that Duran would have to find her own interpreter and that Creative Networks would pay up to $200 for interpreter services. (EEOC SOF ¶¶ 24–25; CN CASF ¶¶ 24–25.) Duran responded that Creative Networks should find and obtain an interpreting agency, but that she could refer Creative Networks to an interpreting agency. (EEOC SOF ¶ 26; CN CASF ¶ 26.) Sankey stated that she would look into it and gave Duran the dates and times for the training, which was twenty-four hours of training spread over six days. (EEOC SOF ¶ 27; CN CASF ¶ 27.)
Jennifer Hardin (“Hardin”), a Creative Networks supervisor, spoke to the Director of Operations, Megan Neal (“Neal”), about Duran’s request for a sign
3

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 4 of 41
language interpreter, and Neal stated that Creative Networks would provide $200 toward the cost of sign language interpretation for Duran’s training only. (EEOC SOF ¶ 29; CN CASF ¶ 29; “Hardin Depo,” Doc. 125-13, 26:5–28:13.)
In another conversation between Duran and Sankey, Duran again requested that Creative Networks provide her with an interpreter for training. (EEOC SOF ¶ 30; CN CASF ¶ 30.) Sankey responded that Duran had to find her own interpreters, and Duran stated again that it was the responsibility of Creative Networks to provide an interpreter. (EEOC SOF ¶ 31; CN CASF ¶ 31.) Duran stated that she had contacted an interpreting agency and that a Michelle Caplette (“Caplette”) from the agency indicated that Caplette had contacted Creative Networks. (EEOC SOF ¶ 32; CN CASF ¶ 32.) Duran suggested that Creative Networks contact and negotiate with Caplette, and Sankey agreed to call the agency and inform Duran of the result. (EEOC SOF ¶¶ 33–34; CN CASF ¶¶ 33–34.)
In the third and last phone conversation with Sankey, Duran explained that she wanted to attend the training, but that $200 would not be enough to pay for sign language interpreter services for the training period. (EEOC SOF ¶ 37, CN CASF ¶ 37.) Sankey responded that it was Creative Networks’ policy to provide only $200 toward interpreting services for the training and that, if Duran had a
4

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 5 of 41
friend or family member to help her, she could be scheduled for the training. (EEOC SOF ¶ 39; CN CASF ¶ 39; Doc. 125-19 at EEOC-CND-00024.) Duran stated that $200 would not cover interpreting for one night of training, and that a certified interpreter would be more appropriate than a friend or family member; Sankey repeated that it was company policy to provide up to $200. (EEOC SOF ¶¶ 40–41; CN CASF ¶¶ 40–41; Doc. 125-19 at EEOC-CND-00024.) Duran then stated that she did not know what to say and added that she did not have anyone to help translate for her. (EEOC SOF ¶ 42; CN CASF ¶ 42; Doc. 125-19 at EEOCCND-00024.) At some point, Sankey said “ok” and appeared to conclude the call. (EEOC SOF ¶ 43; CN CASF ¶ 43; Doc. 125-19 at EEOC-CND-00024.) Creative Networks then placed Duran’s application in its inactive files. (EEOC ¶ 44; CN CASF ¶ 44.)
In May 2005, Duran filed a Charge of Discrimination against Creative Networks, alleging that she was denied a reasonable accommodation during the orientation and training. (Doc. # 127-1 at 2, EEOC-CND-00008.) About three years later, on April 25, 2008, the EEOC issued a determination that there is reasonable cause to believe Creative Networks violated the ADA in having a policy or practice that denied Duran “and a class of similarly situated individuals a reasonable accommodation and denied the class employment because of their
5

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 6 of 41
disabilities.” (Doc. # 127-1 at 4–5, EEOC-CND-00013–14.) II. Procedural Background
On September 28, 2009, the EEOC filed a Complaint against Creative Networks pursuant to Title I and Title V of the ADA and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. (Doc. # 1.) The EEOC brought this lawsuit “to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability and to provide appropriate relief to Rochelle Duran . . . and a class of similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices.” (Id. at 1.) The EEOC asserts that, since at least 2005, Creative Networks has required applicants for the position of Caregiver, Caretaker, and/or Direct Support Professional to complete twenty-four or more hours of pre-employment orientation and training. (Id. ¶ 11.)The EEOC asserts that, since this same time, Creative Networks has had a “policy or practice of denying accommodations costing greater than $200 for interpreting services for hearing impaired applicants,” such as Duran, to complete this training. (Id. ¶ 12.)
As a result, the EEOC contends that Creative Networks has engaged in unlawful employment practices including:
A. Failure to reasonably accommodate and failure to hire . . . Duran and the class because of [Creative Networks’] rigid policy or practice of limiting accommodations to $200
B. Failure to hire . . . Duran and a class of similarly situated individuals because of their disability, hearing impairment
6

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 7 of 41
C. Maintaining a policy that is a per se violation of the ADA and has the impact of not hiring or excluding hearing impaired applicants.
(Id. ¶ 13.) In its Prayer for Relief, the EEOC seeks, inter alia: a permanent
injunction enjoining Creative Networks from engaging in disability discrimination; an order requiring Creative Networks to institute and carry out policies and practices that provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities; an order requiring Creative Networks to provide Duran and a class of similarly situated individuals with backpay, compensation for past and future pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses resulting from the alleged unlawful practices; and punitive damages. (Id. at 5–6.)
On January 14, 2011, the EEOC filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its failure to hire and failure to accommodate claims for Duran and on its claim that the alleged policy limiting sign language interpreter services to $200 is unlawful. (Doc. # 100.) On February 16, 2011, Creative Networks filed a request that the Court deny the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56(d) (the “Rule 56(d) Request”) on the basis that the parties require more time to conduct “class discovery.” (“Rule 56(d) Req.,” Doc. # 105.)
7

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 8 of 41
On April 8, 2011, the Court granted Creative Networks’ Rule 56(d) Request and denied without prejudice the EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 112.) The Court found that the EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was premature because the names of six class members had only been recently disclosed as a result of a delayed mailing to prior applicants to identify potential class members. (Id. at 4, 6–7.)
On November 30, 2011, the EEOC filed a Notice of Non-Issues Concerning Class Claims, in which the EEOC advised the Court that it no longer seeks monetary relief on behalf of a class of victims in the case. (Doc. # 123.) The EEOC stated that it continues to seek monetary relief on behalf of Duran and “injunctive relief relevant to all claims set forth in the Commission’s Complaint.” (Id. at 1.) The EEOC also stated that it advised Creative Networks that it continues to list as witnesses individuals previously identified as class members. (Id. at 1–2.)
On December 8, 2011, the EEOC filed the instant Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (“EEOC Mot.,” Doc. # 124.) The EEOC also filed a Statement of Facts in support of its motion. (“EEOC SOF,” Doc. # 125.) On January 19, 2012, Creative Networks filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“CN Response,” Doc. # 130) and a Controverting, and
8

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 9 of 41
Additional Statement of Facts (“CN CASF,” Doc. # 131). On February 16, 2012, the EEOC filed a Reply to Defendant’s Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (“EEOC Reply,” Doc. # 137.)
On December 9, 2011, Creative Networks filed the instant Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (“CN Mot.,” Doc. # 126.) Creative Networks also filed a Separate Statement of Facts in support of its motion. (“CN SSOF,” Doc. # 127.) On January 19, 2012, the EEOC filed a Response to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“EEOC Resp.,” Doc. # 132) and a Response to Defendant’s Statement of Facts (Doc. # 133). On February 16, 2012, Creative Networks filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (“CN Reply,” Doc. # 138.)
At the May 18, 2012 hearing, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties regarding the purpose of the EEOC’s claim that Creative Networks maintained a policy that is a per se violation of the ADA and has the impact of not hiring or excluding hearing impaired applicants. On May 29, 2012, the EEOC filed its supplemental brief. (Doc. # 144.) On June 4, 2012, Creative Networks filed a responding brief. (Doc. # 145.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 10 of 41
56 when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Porter v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 419 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 2005); Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). A main purpose of summary judgment is to dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986).
Summary judgment must be granted against a party that fails to demonstrate facts to establish what will be an essential element at trial. See id. at 323. Where the moving party will have the burden of proof at trial, it must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. Id. at 322–23. A moving party without the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial—usually, but not always, the defendant—has both the initial burden of production and the ultimate burden of persuasion on a motion for summary judgment. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). “A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and of identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th
10

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 11 of 41
Cir. 2007) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323). Once the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56, the
nonmoving party “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” and may not rely on the mere allegations in the pleadings. Porter, 419 F.3d at 891 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986)). In setting forth “specific facts,” the nonmoving party may not meet its burden on a summary judgment motion by making general references to evidence without page or line numbers. S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2003). “[A]t least some ‘significant probative evidence’” must be produced. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9ith Cir. 1987) (quoting First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290 (1968)). “A scintilla of evidence or evidence that is merely colorable or not significantly probative does not present a genuine issue of material fact.” Addisu, 198 F.3d at 1134. Further, the Ninth Circuit has “refused to find a ‘genuine issue’ where the only evidence presented is ‘uncorroborated and selfserving’ testimony.” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir. 1996)). “Conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data cannot defeat summary judgment.” Rivera v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 331 F.3d 1074, 1078
11

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 12 of 41
(9th Cir. 2003). When “direct evidence” produced by the moving party conflicts with
“direct evidence” produced by the party opposing summary judgment, “the judge must assume the truth of the evidence set forth by the nonmoving party with respect to that fact.” T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. In other words, evidence and inferences must be construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Porter, 419 F.3d at 891. The court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence at the summary judgment stage. Id.; see also Nelson v. City of Davis, 571 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[C]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.”) (citations omitted). However, inferences may be drawn from underlying facts not in dispute, as well as from disputed facts that the judge is required to resolve in favor of the nonmoving party. T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631.
DISCUSSION The EEOC seeks partial summary judgment on its claims that Creative Networks violated Title I of the ADA when it allegedly failed to provide sign language interpretation as a reasonable accommodation to Duran and when it failed to hire Duran. (EEOC Mot. at 1.)
12

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 13 of 41
Creative Networks seeks partial summary judgment against (1) the EEOC’s allegations and claims for relief on behalf of “an alleged class of similarly situated individuals,” and (2) the EEOC’s claims for injunctive relief. I. The EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Title I of the ADA prohibits “discriminat[ion] against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring . . . of employees, . . . job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (2005).1 Under the ADA, the term “discriminate” includes “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A).
A. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation To establish a prima facie case under the ADA that Creative Networks
1 The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”) took effect in 2009. However, the Ninth Circuit has concluded that the ADAAA is not retroactive. Becerril v. Pima Cnty. Assessor’s Office, 587 F.3d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). Therefore, the Court analyzes the EEOC’s claims in accordance with the ADA standards in effect prior to the passage of the ADAAA.
13

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 14 of 41
failed to accommodate Duran’s disability requires demonstrating: “(1) [s]he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [s]he is a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation; and (3) [s]he suffered an adverse employment action because of [her] disability.” Allen v. Pac. Bell, 348 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 164 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 1999)). The ADA defines “qualified individual with a disability” as “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).
“Once an employer becomes aware of the need for accommodation, that employer has a mandatory obligation under the ADA to engage in an interactive process with the employee to identify and implement appropriate reasonable accommodations.” Humphrey v. Mem’l Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128, 1137 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Barnett v. U.S. Air, 228 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000)). “The interactive process requires communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations between employers and individual employees, and neither side can delay or obstruct the process.” Id. (citing Barnett, 228 F.3d at 1114–15). “Employers, who fail to engage in the interactive process in good faith, face liability for the remedies imposed by the statute if a reasonable
14

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 15 of 41
accommodation would have been possible.” Id. at 1137–38 (citing Barnett, 228 F.3d at 1116).
Creative Networks does not dispute that Duran is disabled or that she was qualified for the Direct Support Professional position in April and May 2005 when she applied for the position. (EEOC SOF ¶¶ 2, 8, 12; CN CASF ¶¶ 2, 8, 12.) Creative Networks also does not dispute that Duran told Sankey that she needed a sign language interpreter for training, or that Sankey responded that Creative Networks would provide only $200 toward interpreting services for the full training and suggested that Duran bring a friend or family member who could help her. (EEOC SOF ¶¶ 24, 37–43; CN CASF ¶ 24, 37–43.) The parties have also stipulated that “the accommodations requested by Rochelle Duran when she applied for employment with [Creative Networks] in April and May 2005 and the provision of an ASL interpreter to Rochelle Duran for pre-employment orientation and training would not have caused an undue hardship to [Creative Networks] pursuant to Sections 101 and 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(1) & § 12112(b)(5). (Doc. # 96.) The court has ordered that Creative Networks “will not assert an undue hardship defense or introduce evidence of undue hardship in this case, pursuant to Sections 101 and 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(1) & § 12112(b)(5).” (Doc. # 99.)
15

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 16 of 41
Further, the EEOC points to deposition testimony by Neal and Creative Network’s State Director Ron Cornelison (“Cornelison”) that it was unreasonable for Creative Networks to limit its coverage of interpreter services to $200. (“Neal Depo.,” Doc. 125-9 at 29:15–17; “Cornelison Depo,” Doc. 125-22 at 61:3–11.) Cornelison also testified that Duran’s request for a sign language interpreter was reasonable. (Cornelison Depo. at 61:13–23, 62:3–6.)
Creative Networks has not come forward with any evidence creating a triable issue of fact as to whether it denied Duran a reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA. Indeed, in its Response to the EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Creative Networks conceded liability as to the EEOC’s first claim. Specifically, Creative Networks states that with respect to EEOC’s “reasonable accommodation” claim pertaining to Duran:
Defendant has subsequently acknowledged that despite the uncertainties as to whether Ms. Duran would ultimately complete all four steps of the process and actually ever come to work for the company, under the ADA it still could have and should have paid for and provided Ms. Duran with the ASL sign-language interpretation she was seeking as a reasonable accommodation for the first step of the process set forth above, the pre-interview/pre-hire training, with respect to the part-time second job position she had applied for. (CN Resp. at 3.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS EEOC’s motion for summary judgment as to its failure to accommodate claim with respect to Duran.
16

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 17 of 41
B. Failure to Hire The EEOC argues that Creative Networks violated the ADA by
refusing to hire Duran because of the cost of providing her an interpreter. (EEOC Mot. at 11.) The EEOC specifically argues that Creative Networks’ “refusal to reasonably accommodate Ms. Duran rendered her ineligible for hire, as it prevented her from attending and passing [Creative Networks’] mandatory training program.” (Id. at 11–12.)
Discrimination under the ADA includes “denying employment opportunities to a job applicant . . . who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(B). A plaintiff may establish a violation of the ADA by providing direct evidence of discrimination or making a prima facie showing of discriminatory intent. Daniel v. Boeing Co., 764 F. Supp. 2d 1233, 1240 (2011). If the plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 803 (1973). To prevail, the plaintiff must then produce evidence of facts that show the defendant’s proffered reasons are a pretext for illegal discrimination. Id.
17

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 18 of 41
at 804. To make out a prima facie case under the ADA, the EEOC must show
that Duran was a qualified individual with a disability who suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability. See Sanders v. Arneson Products, 91 F.3d 1351, 1353 (9th Cir. 1996). As stated above, it is undisputed that Duran is disabled and that she was qualified for the Direct Support Professional position. The issue in dispute by the parties is whether Creative Networks failed to hire Duran because of her disability. However, it is undisputed that Creative Networks’ application process required completing a training program and that Creative Networks would cover only up to $200 for interpreter services for Duran’s training. Moreover, as noted above, the Court has found, and Creative Networks has conceded, that Creative Networks denied Duran a reasonable accommodation during the pre-employment training.
As a preliminary matter, Creative Networks asserts that the EEOC’s motion does not even make the argument that Creative Works failed to hire Duran because of her disability but rather makes a “wholly irrelevant” argument that Creative Works did not hire Duran because of the expense in providing interpreter services. (CN Resp. at 5.) Creative Networks’ assertion, however, fails because the Ninth Circuit has established that the “ADA outlaws adverse employment
18

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 19 of 41
decisions motivated, even in part, by animus based on a plaintiff’s disability or request for an accommodation—a motivating factor standard.” Head v. Glacier Northwest, Inc., 413 F.3d 1053, 1065 (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added).
Creative Works also argues that the EEOC’s failure to hire claim fails because Creative Works never reached the stage of deciding whether to hire Duran. Specifically, Creative Works argues that applicants must complete the preinterview/pre-hire training, and then an interview, before even being considered for a possible job offer. (CN Resp. at 4.) Thus, according to Creative Networks, because Duran never completed the mandatory pre-interview/pre-hire training, she was never in the position to be considered for or hired for the job. (Id.)
The Court declines to adopt Creative Networks’ stringent standard. As a general matter, a claimant is not necessarily required to complete every step of the application process—or even apply—when discriminatory hiring procedures deter her from doing so. See Int’l Bros. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 365–67 (1977) (“The effects of and the injuries suffered from discriminatory employment practices are not always confined to those who were expressly denied a requested employment opportunity. A consistently enforced discriminatory policy can surely deter job applications from those who are aware of it and are unwilling to subject themselves to the humiliation of explicit and certain
19

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 20 of 41
rejection.”). Neither is the EEOC required to show that Duran would have obtained
the job if Creative Works had not acted unlawfully under the ADA. See Ruggles v. California Polytechnic State Univ., 797 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1986). Ruggles involved a Title VII claim for retaliation based on an employer’s failure to hire the plaintiff. 797 F.2d at 785. The Ninth Circuit determined that the plaintiff in such a case must show that the position for which she applied was eliminated or not available to her because of her protected activities, rather than show that, but for her protected activities, she would have been hired. Id. at 785–86. Therefore, the “‘adverse employment decision’ is the closing of the job opening to [the plaintiff] and the loss of opportunity even to compete for the position. The plaintiff need not show that she would have obtained the job, a showing that would be nearly insurmountable at the prima facie stage . . . .” Id. at 786. Moreover, in a failure to hire case, the Ninth Circuit has indicated that it takes a broad view as to when discriminatory conduct takes place under the ADA. See Zivkovic v. S. Calif. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002) (“If, however, the interviews were conducted in a discriminatory manner without providing a reasonable accommodation, the interviewers’ non-selection of [the plaintiff] would not be appropriate.”).
20

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 21 of 41
As the EEOC argues, under Creative Networks’ theory— that Duran is precluded from asserting a failure to hire claim because she did not complete every step of the application process—employers could discriminate and deny reasonable accommodations during early stages of the application process and avoid any liability for discrimination in hiring. (See EEOC Reply at 9.) In light of the aforementioned case law, the Court declines to follow such a principle.
Here, it is undisputed that the application process required completing a training program, and Creative Networks has conceded that it denied Duran a reasonable accommodation for the pre-employment training. The evidence also shows that after Duran was denied a reasonable accommodation for the training, Creative Networks put her application in an inactive file.
Moreover, the EEOC further proffers the testimony of Rosemary Padilla, a Staff Development Administrative Assistant at Creative Networks, as evidence that Creative Networks did not hire Duran because it would cost more than $200 to provide an interpreter:
Q. (By [EEOC counsel]) And what did Jen Hardine do to your knowledge?
A. To my knowledge they came back and said that it was going to cost I think over $200 or something to hire her, for us, meaning the company, to get someone to translate for her.
Q. And to your knowledge what did Creative Networks do in response to Rochelle Duran’s request?
A. They couldn’t fulfill that request for her. To my knowledge
21

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 22 of 41
they couldn’t fulfill that request. (“Padilla Depo.,” Doc. # 125-16 at 26:20–25 to 27:1–4.)
Creative Networks also asserts that the EEOC fails to present sufficient undisputed facts to establish a “failure to hire” claim under the ADA. (CN Resp. at 4.) Specifically, Creative Networks argues that the EEOC premises its entire basis for partial summary judgment on a “single purported undisputed fact” and attacks the evidence—namely Padilla’s deposition testimony—that EEOC relies on to support this purported fact. (Id. at 4.) For example, Creative Networks argues that Padilla was not a proper witness for this proposition because she was an administrative assistant with no decision-making authority.2 (CN Resp. at 4; CN CASF Ex. 2 at 16:20–19:10, 68:9–11.)
However, Creative Networks’ characterization of the EEOC’s argument as limited to one statement of fact is too narrow. To support its failure to hire claim, the EEOC also points to a transcript of a conversation between Sankey and Duran, in which Sankey informed Duran that Creative Networks
2 Creative Networks also argues that Padilla’s testimony “more accurately addresses discussions about the company” providing interpreter services for Duran for the pre-interview/pre-hire training, “rather than any discussions regarding possibly later ‘hiring’ Ms. Duran after her potential successful completion” of the next step of the application process. (CN Resp. at 4) However, as discussed above, Creative Networks’ argument that Duran’s claim is precluded because she was never in the position to be considered for hiring fails.
22

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 23 of 41
would provide only $200 toward interpreting services for the training:
RDuranclp: Hi Eva, this is Rochelle. I am still interested and I show up for the training on Tuesday evening. I understand that you will pay up to $200.00 dollars for the interpreter. But, do you understand it is not enough for four hours training? how will I be able to receive 24 hours of training? ga3 My IP Relay: I am sorry that is the company [policy] we pay the 200 dollars for the full training class and if u have a family member or a friend that could help u with that just [inform] them that we will pay 200 dollars and call us back to schedule u for a training class . . . RDuranclp: Even if it is $200.00 for one night of training, and it is still does not cover four hours training. Also, to receive appropriate training through certified interpreters would be appropriate, rather than friends or family member ga My IP Relay: like I said company policy because of the company policy we only take the 200 dollars for the 24 hours training My IP Relay: ga RDuranclp: well, I do not know what else to say but thank you bye bye ga or sksk RDuranclp: by the way RDuranclp: there is no one else RDuranclp: that could help translate for me RDuranclp: ga My IP Relay: ok (WHILE U TYPED (HUNG UP ANOTHER CALL QQ) RDuranclp: no and thank you by sksks My IP Relay: GA TNK U IP RELAY RO 1837M BYE SKSK
(EEOC SOF ¶ 39; CN CASF ¶ 39; Doc. # 125-19 at EEOC-CND-00024.) The
evidence also shows that Hardin, upon the direction of her supervisor, advised an
3 “GA” means “go ahead.” “SK” means “stop keying.” (Duran Depo. at 95:7–10.)
23

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 24 of 41
assistant who was in touch with Duran that Creative Networks would provide $200 for the cost of an interpreter and that the $200 did not include translating services for the orientation. (Hardin Depo, 26:5–28:13.)
Based on the above evidence, the EEOC has demonstrated that Creative Works denied Duran an employment opportunity and that the denial was based on her need for reasonable accommodations. Indeed, Defendant’s failure to offer Duran reasonable accommodations foreclosed her opportunity for employment by preventing her from proceeding further in the application process. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(B) (discrimination under the ADA includes “denying employment opportunities to a job applicant . . . who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant.”). The EEOC has met its prima facie burden, and the burden of production thus shifts to Creative Networks to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 803. Creative Networks, however, does not present any nondiscriminatory reasons for its denying Duran employment opportunities.4 Accordingly, the Court
4 Creative Networks appears to have conceded liability as to the EEOC’s failure to hire claim. In its June 5, 2012 Response to the EEOC’s Supplemental Memorandum, Creative Networks states:
24

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 25 of 41
GRANTS the EEOC’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to its failure to
hire claim as to Duran.5
II. Creative Networks’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Creative Networks moves for partial summary judgment against (1)
the EEOC’s allegations and claims for relief on behalf of the alleged class of
similarly situated individuals, and (2) the EEOC’s claims for injunctive relief. (CN
Mot. at 1.) In its Motion, Creative Networks describes in great detail the
procedural history of the case, complaining, inter alia, that the EEOC’s Complaint
makes vague allegations with respect to an alleged class of similarly situated
individuals and that it was not until January 31, 2011—more than sixteen months
[T]he only remaining evidentiary issues for trial in this case are monetary damages . . . as to Ms. Duran . . . in a case where failure to reasonably accommodate, and failure to hire, Ms. Duran (for a parttime second/ supplemental income job at a time when she already had a full-time job, and after which time she obtained an alternate parttime second/supplemental income job) have been admitted. (Doc. # 145 at 5–6 (emphasis added).) Creative Networks also separately states in the same brief that “[t]he only remaining evidentiary issues for trial in this case are (1) appropriate damages/relief, not liability, (2) on behalf of Ms. Duran only, not any class, relating to Defendant’s failure to reasonably accommodate/hire Ms. Duran.” (Id. at 4 (emphasis added).) 5 In its Reply, the EEOC requests that the Court strike paragraph 59 of Creative Networks’ Additional Statement of Facts. (EEOC Reply at 11.) Because the Court did not rely on this paragraph in deciding the EEOC’s Motion, the Court denies the EEOC’s request as moot.
25

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 26 of 41
after filing the Complaint and two months after the initial discovery deadline—that the EEOC first disclosed any alleged similarly situated class members. (Id. at 1–4.) Creative Networks also primarily bases its motion for partial summary judgment on the EEOC’s communications to Creative Networks in October 2011 that it would no longer pursue relief on behalf of its six class members.
In an email to Creative Networks counsel on October 18, 2011, the EEOC states that “[b]ased on Defendant’s responses to the EEOC’s discovery requests, we are not going to seek relief on behalf of” five of the individuals previously identified as class members, but that it would continue to seek relief on behalf of class member Christa Dondero. (Doc. # 127-1 at 40.) In an October 26, 2011 email to Creative Networks’ counsel, the EEOC states that “after receiving Defendant’s discovery responses and conducting the 30(b)(6) deposition, we are no longer seeking relief for Christa Dondero as a class member. However, she remains a witness in the case.” (Doc. # 127-1 at 44.)
On November 30, 2011, the EEOC filed a “Plaintiff’s Notice of NonIssues Concerning Class Claims,” which states that it “no longer seeks monetary relief on behalf of a class of victims in this case” and that it continues to seek monetary relief on behalf of Duran and “injunctive relief relevant to all claims set forth in the Commission’s Complaint.”
26

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 27 of 41
A. Allegations and Claims on Behalf of the Class
Creative Networks moves for partial summary judgment against the
EEOC’s class component of the case, “including any allegations and arguments by
the EEOC regarding, and requests and claims for relief by the EEOC on behalf of,
any class of similarly situated individuals or class members,” such as:
(i) any claims that Creative Networks failed to provide reasonable accommodations to a class of hearing-impaired individuals in violation of Section 102 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) or otherwise,
(ii) any claims that Creative Networks failed or refused to hire a class of hearing-impaired individuals because of their disabilities in violation of Section 102 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) or otherwise,
(iii) any claims that Creative Networks maintained any policy or policies with respect to its pre-employment orientation and/or preemployment training that were in violation of the ADA and had the impact of not hiring or excluding a class of hearing-impaired applicants, and
(iv) any claims that there was a class of hearing-impaired applicants who requested and were denied a reasonable accommodation by Creative Networks relating to their hearing-impairment with respect to Creative Networks’ pre-employment orientation and/or preemployment training based on any policy of, or practice by, Creative Networks of denying reasonable accommodations costing greater than $200 for interpreting services for hearing-impaired applicants, or otherwise.
(CN Mot. at 6–7.)
In response to Creative Networks’ Motion for Partial Summary
27

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 28 of 41
Judgment, the EEOC states that it does not contest the dismissal of class claims and confirms that it has withdrawn its claims for relief on behalf of class members. (EEOC Resp. at 1–2, 7.) The EEOC also notes that in November 2011, it sent Creative Networks a proposed stipulation and order dismissing the class claims.6 (Id. at 7; Docs. # 133-30, 133-31.)
However, the EEOC states that it opposes Creative Networks’ “broad summary judgment [request] which would, in effect, deny appropriate monetary relief for Ms. Duran and appropriate injunctive relief in the public interest.” (EEOC Resp. at 7.) The EEOC asserts that there are disputed questions of fact regarding whether Creative Networks discriminated against other hearingimpaired applicants and employees, and that testimony from such individuals is relevant regarding Creative Networks’ liability for punitive damages for Duran and injunctive relief sought in the public interest. (Id. at 8.)
Because the EEOC is no longer pursuing monetary or other individual affirmative relief on behalf of a purported class of similarly situated
6 The Proposed Stipulation for Dismissal provides that the EEOC will dismiss its claims for relief for class members in the case with prejudice. It also provides: “The EEOC will continue to seek relief for [Duran] with respect to all claims and damages set forth in the EEOC’s complaint. The EEOC also continues to list as witnesses some of the previously identified class members.” (Doc. # 13331.)
28

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 29 of 41
individuals, the Court dismisses the class claims for relief. However, the Court denies Creative Networks’ partial summary judgment motion with respect to the EEOC’s claims and allegations that, inter alia, Creative Networks had a policy or practice of denying reasonable accommodations to hearing-impaired applicants that had the impact of not hiring or excluding such applicants.
As stated above, Creative Networks appears to rest its motion for partial summary judgment solely on the EEOC dropping “all allegations and claims for relief on behalf of any alleged class of similarly situated individuals[.]” (CN Mot. at 6.) This argument fails.
First, the Court disagrees with Creative Networks’ broad characterization of the EEOC’s statements with respect to the class claims. As stated above, EEOC’s October 18, 2011 and October 26 emails state that the EEOC is no longer seeking relief on behalf of identified class members. (See doc. # 127-1 at 40, 44.) The emails did not indicate that the EEOC was dropping its allegations that, inter alia, Creative Networks had a policy or practice of denying accommodations greater than $200 for interpreting services.
Second, Creative Networks has not met its initial burden of “identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Soremekun, 509
29

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 30 of 41
F.3d at 984. As discussed above, Creative Networks’ characterization of the EEOC’s communications is overly broad. Creative Networks has not otherwise identified any materials that demonstrate the EEOC’s failure to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the allegations that Creative Networks had a policy or practice of denying accommodations costing greater than $200 for interpreting services for hearing impaired individuals.
Third, the EEOC has proffered evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether other deaf and hearing-impaired individuals were subjected to discrimination. With respect to whether Creative Networks failed to provide reasonable accommodations to other hearing-impaired applicants, the EEOC points to Creative Networks’ February 27, 2007 Response to Request for Information, which states that on December 11, 2003, Creative Networks advised a hearing-impaired applicant, Cecily Colle (“Colle”),7 that she would be provided $200 for interpreting services. (Doc. # 133-14 at 1.) Creative Networks’ Response continues to state that on January 21, 2004, Colle called and indicated that she still wanted to start training, but that as of February 19, 2004, Creative Networks had not heard back from Colle. (Id. at 2.) The EEOC also
7 The EEOC disclosed Colle as a witness, but did not include her in the EEOC’s class.
30

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 31 of 41
submitted email communications between Hardin and Charles Leboda, a recruiter for Creative Networks, with the subject line: “Cecily Colle.” In a January 21, 2004 email, Leboda informed Hardin that Colle called and stated she is “still interested.” (Doc. # 133-15.) Then, on February 18, 2004, Hardin asked, “You haven’t heard from her? After you told her she’d have to pony up part of the $?” Leboda responded on February 19, 2004: “Not a thing. She said she would look into it and call back.” (Id.)
The EEOC also submitted deposition testimony of Sankey that in August 2006, she advised another hearing-impaired individual, Christa Dondero (“Dondero”), that Creative Networks would pay $200 for interpreting services. (Doc. # 133-1 at 15:19–25, 16:9–25.) Although the EEOC acknowledges that Dondero was hired by Creative Networks, the EEOC also points to a letter from Dondero to Creative Networks dated August 17, 2010 in which she complains about the lack of interpreter services for classes for CPR, first aid, or mandatory meetings and refers to enclosed “information about ADA law that may help you understand why I need the accommodation.” (Doc. # 133-13.)
Finally, the EEOC points to deposition testimony of Megan Neal that “[a]t some point Ron Cornelison and I discussed that we would pay $200. I do not recall when that conversation was, if it was in relation to Rochelle Duran. It
31

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 32 of 41
was a general discussion about what we would do with people who had hearing impairment and translators and the cost[.]” (Doc. # 133-9 at 19:15–20.) The transcript of Neal’s deposition testimony also suggests that Neal knew that the costs for an interpreter would exceed $200:
Q. But you knew that Iraj Sohaei’s interpreter had cost much more than $200? A. I do believe I knew that, yes. Q. Well, you had said before that you had paid thousands for the interpreter for Iraj Sohaei, correct? A. I think it was in the thousands, yes. Q. So you knew that the amount was actually much higher than $200? A. Yes. (Id. at 21:21–25, 22:1–4.)
Based on the above evidence, the Court finds a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Creative Networks failed or refused to hire Colle because of her disability by denying her reasonable accommodations. The EEOC has also demonstrated through the above evidence a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Creative Networks maintained a policy with respect to its preemployment orientation and/or pre-employment training in violation of the ADA and that Creative Networks subjected other deaf and hearing-impaired individuals to this policy.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the EEOC’s class claims for relief,
32

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 33 of 41
but otherwise DENIES Creative Networks’ Motion with respect to EEOC’s allegations regarding other hearing impaired individuals.
B. Injunctive Relief Creative Networks seeks partial summary judgment on the EEOC’s
claims for injunctive relief prayed for in the Complaint, asserting that the EEOC’s remaining allegations and claims for relief now relate only to Duran and represents at most an “isolated incident” that does not warrant an injunction.8 (CN Mot. at 7–8.) Creative Networks asserts that “in light of the EEOC having dropped all allegations and claims for relief on behalf of any alleged class of similarly situated individuals, there is no abundant evidence of consistent past discrimination.” (Id. at 8.)
The EEOC asserts that Creative Networks’ motion for summary judgment regarding injunctive relief should be denied as premature because the Court has not yet determined liability in the case nor determined appropriate
8 Creative Networks also argues that the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint form a “two-part action for relief” – an action for relief on behalf of Duran, and an action for relief on behalf of a class. (CN Reply at 3.) Creative Networks further argues that because the EEOC is no longer pursuing relief on behalf of a class, the case is now reduced to simply a one-part action for relief on behalf of Duran. (Id.) However, the Court construes the EEOC’s Complaint as also seeking injunctive relief in the public interest, independent of the relief sought for Duran and the class.
33

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 34 of 41
damages. (EEOC Resp. at 11.) The EEOC also argues that, regardless of whether the EEOC seeks relief for class members, it may pursue injunctive relief “in the public interest” and that Creative Networks has not met its burden to prove that it will not engage in future discrimination. (Id. at 12–15.)
If a court finds that an employer has “intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin [the employer] from engaging in such unlawful employment practice and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees . . . or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a).9 In EEOC v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d 1539 (9th Cir. 1987), the Ninth Circuit stated that “Section 706(g) authorizes the EEOC to seek class action-type relief without complying with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 [which provides for class certification], even when it only alleges
9 The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have afforded the EEOC significant latitude in seeking various remedies as a means of vindicating the public interest. “[P]ursuant to Title VII and the ADA, whenever the EEOC chooses from among the many charges filed each year to bring an enforcement action in a particular case, the agency may be seeking to vindicate a public interest, not simply provide make-whole relief for the employee, even when it pursues entirely victim-specific relief.” E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 296 (2002).
34

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 35 of 41
individual acts of discrimination.” Id. at 1543. Upon a finding of any intentional employment discrimination, a district court possesses broad discretion to craft an injunction that will ensure the employer’s compliance with the law. See Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1233 (9th Cir. 1991). “Thus, the EEOC may obtain such general injunctive relief, under the equitable discretion of the district court, even where the EEOC only identifies one or a mere handful of aggrieved employees.” EEOC v. Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc., 177 F.3d 448, 468 (6th Cir. 1999); EEOC v. Ilona of Hungary, Inc., 108 F.3d 1569, 1578 (7th Cir. 1997); EEOC v. Harris Chernin, Inc., 10 F.3d 1286, 1292 (7th Cir. 1993). The “EEOC may seek injunctive relief to correct discrimination uncovered during its investigation of the charge of just one individual. The EEOC may obtain a permanent injunction even where it does not allege a pattern or policy of discrimination.” Frank’s Nursery, 177 F.3d at 468.
The EEOC may seek injunctive relief in the public interest. The EEOC “is not merely a proxy for the victims of discrimination,” but “acts also to vindicate the public interest in preventing employment discrimination.” General Tel. Co. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 326 (1980); see also Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d at 1542–43 (holding that the EEOC may seek injunctive relief even after the individual charging party reached a settlement with her employer); Harris
35

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 36 of 41
Chernin, Inc., 10 F.3d at 1292 (“To make a case for injunctive relief, the EEOC may not need to produce evidence of discrimination beyond [the individual charging party’s] case.” (citing Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d at 1544 (EEOC entitled to injunction if it proves case involving discrimination of one employee and where employer fails to prove violation not likely to recur))).
An employer may avoid an injunction by showing that “there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated,” that is, that the issue or claim is moot. United States v. W.T. Grant Co. , 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953); see also EEOC v. Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d 1504, 1518-19 (9th Cir. 1989); Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d at 1544. However, the burden of showing no reasonable expectation of repeating the wrong is high. See W. T. Grant, 345 U.S. at 633. Generally, victims of employment discrimination are entitled to an injunction against future discrimination unless the employer proves it is unlikely to repeat the practice. See Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d at 1519; Goodyear Aerospace, 813 F.2d at 1544.
“Permanent injunctive relief is warranted where . . . defendant’s past and present misconduct indicates a strong likelihood of future violations.” Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549, 564 (9th Cir. 1990). Evidence relied on to show a cognizable danger of recurrent violation should not be “stale”
36

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 37 of 41
or too far removed from the present. See Webb v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 98 F.3d 1067, 1068–69 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding that past conduct cannot support an injunction issued five years after the close of evidence). In making this finding, the court may consider “the degree of scienter involved; the isolated or recurrent nature of the infraction; the defendant’s recognition of the wrongful nature of his conduct; the extent to which the defendant’s professional and personal characteristics might enable or tempt him to commit future violations; and the sincerity of any assurances against future violations.” United States v. Laerdal Mfg. Corp., 73 F.3d 852, 854-855 (9th Cir. 1995).
The Court denies Creative Networks’ Motion. First, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion is premature because Creative Networks’ liability with respect to the EEOC’s claim that Creative Works maintained a policy that was a per se violation of the ADA has not been resolved. Upon reviewing the parties’ supplemental briefs regarding the EEOC’s policy violation claim, the Court finds that this claim remains relevant particularly as to the Court’s shaping of any appropriate injunctive relief.10 Because liability has yet to be determined as to this
10 Because the Court finds that the EEOC’s policy claim is relevant as to injunctive relief, an issue in the instant motion, the Court does not express an opinion at this time as to any bearing that the EEOC’s policy claim may have with respect to punitive damages.
37

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 38 of 41
claim, ruling on injunctive relief would be premature. Moreover, as stated above, the Court has found that Creative Networks violated the ADA with respect to Duran, and Creative Networks has not carried its burden of proving that it is unlikely to repeat the violation of denying applicants reasonable accommodations. See Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d at 1544. Even if no other charges existed, that does not suffice to show that future violations are unlikely. Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d at 1519 (finding the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding permanent injunctive relief even in the absence of further EEOC charges). Further, the Court has found that a material issue of fact exists as to the EEOC’s claims with respect to allegations that Creative Networks engaged in an unlawful employment practice as to at least some of the EEOC’s witnesses.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Creative Networks’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to injunctive relief.
In its Reply, Creative Networks argues for the first time that injunctive relief in the public interest is only available to the EEOC in a Section 707 “pattern or practice” case, and that the EEOC’s Complaint is based on Section 706, which pertains to relief for aggrieved individuals. Creative Networks asserts that the EEOC is impermissibly attempting to insert a new, unpled Section 707 “pattern or practice” legal theory into the case by stating in its response that it is
38

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 39 of 41
seeking an injunction in the public interest as well as on behalf of Duran. The
Court does not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply. See Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (“[A]rguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived”).11 In any event, Creative Networks’ argument fails because the Ninth Circuit and other courts have found that the EEOC may obtain general injunctive relief in § 706 claims. See Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d at 1544; Frank’s Nursery, 177 F.3d at 468 (“The EEOC may obtain a permanent injunction even where it does not allege a pattern or policy of discrimination.”).12
Creative Networks also argues in its Reply that none of the three alleged witnesses by the EEOC13 were deposed or shown to be similarly situated
class members. (CN Reply at 7.) Whether the witnesses were shown to be similarly situated class members is not relevant, as the EEOC is no longer seeking
11 The Court does not consider Creative Networks’s new argument in its Reply with regard to “Plaintiff’s actions in failing to investigate, make a reasonable cause determination on, and conciliate, the class allegations during the EEOC administrative investigation phase[.]”
12 The cases that Creative Networks cites in its Reply do not support its argument that injunctive relief in the public interest is only available to the EEOC in a § 707 “pattern or practice” case.
13 The witnesses Creative Networks specifically referred to are Colle, Dondero, and a third witness, Sherri Acero. Creative Networks notes that it hired Dondero, Acero, and two other previously alleged class members.
39

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 40 of 41
relief for them as class members. Creative Networks also argues that Dondero is an improper witness
because the EEOC disclosed her as a class witness rather than as a witness for its non-class case. (CN Reply at 7–8.) Creative Networks asserts that once the EEOC chose to withdraw its class case, all “solely class case witnesses” such as Dondero were thus also withdrawn. (Id. at 8.) The Court notes, however, that its finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to allegations with respect to Dondero were not based on Dondero’s testimony, but on Sankey’s deposition testimony as well as a letter that Dondero wrote to Creative Networks. The issue of the propriety of the EEOC’s witnesses, raised for the first time in Creative Networks’ Reply, will not be decided here. Should Creative Networks continue to seek to exclude the testimony of certain witnesses, it may do so by filing a motion in limine.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. # 124) and DENIES Creative Networks’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. # 126).
40

Case 2:09-cv-02023-DAE Document 149 Filed 09/20/12 Page 41 of 41
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 19, 2012.
_____________________________ David Alan Ezra United States District Judge Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Creative Networks, L.L.C., Cv. No. 09-02023 DAE; ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
41

 
 Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 1 of 16
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09−cv−02023−DAE

CLOSED,STD

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Creative Networks L.L.C. Assigned to: Judge David A Ezra Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/28/2009 Date Terminated: 09/19/2013 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Andrea Gail Baran Equal Employment Opportunity Commission − Phoenix, AZ 3300 N Central Ave., Ste. 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5016 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: andrea.baran@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Robert Houk Equal Employment Opportunity Commission − Phoenix, AZ 3300 N Central Ave., Ste. 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5049 Email: christopher.houk@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hillary K Valderrama US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3300 North Central Avenue Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−2504 602−640−4988 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: hillary.valderrama@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Meenoo Chahbazi Equal Employment Opportunity Commission − Phoenix, AZ 3300 N Central Ave., Ste. 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5061 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: Meenoo.Chahbazi@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 11/01/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 2 of 16
P David Lopez EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5016 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: patrick.lopez@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 10/26/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tin−Tin Diana Chen EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−2504 602−640−5033 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: Diana.chen@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/16/2011
Lucila G Rosas EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602−640−5025 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: lucila.rosas@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 10/27/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Creative Networks LLC an Arizona Limited Liability Company

represented by James Lawrence Blair Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros PA 1 N Central Ave., Ste. 900 Phoenix, AZ 85004−4417 602−307−9900 Fax: 602−307−5853 Email: jblair@rcdmlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neil Todd McKay Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros PA 1 N Central Ave., Ste. 900 Phoenix, AZ 85004−4417 602−307−9900 Fax: 602−307−5853 Email: tmckay@rcdmlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/28/2009
09/28/2009

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT., filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
2 This case has been assigned to the Honorable Lawrence O. Anderson. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV 09−2023−PHX−LOA. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 09/29/2009)

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 3 of 16

09/28/2009 09/29/2009 09/30/2009
10/21/2009
10/26/2009 10/27/2009 10/28/2009 11/13/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/17/2009 11/18/2009
11/20/2009

3 Magistrate Election Form Deadline (Attachments: # 1 Instructions)(BAS) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
4 Summons Issued as to Creative Networks L.L.C.. (BAS). *** IMPORTANT: You must select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" on the print screen in order for the court seal to appear on the summons you print. (Entered: 09/29/2009)
5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that Pla shall file its written election to either consent to magistrate−judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States district judge on or before Monday, 10/19/09. FURTHER ORDERED that Dft shall file its written election to either consent to magistrate−judge jurisdiction or elect to have this case assigned to a United States district judge within 20 days of its appearance herein or as otherwise directed by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 9/29/09. (SAT) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
6 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE − that Pla show cause in writing on or before Friday, October 30, 2009 why Pla's Complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice. If Pla complies with the Court's September 30, 2009 Order on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 30, 2009 or if Pla has already done so but its consent or election has not yet been docketed by the Clerk, the undersigned will automatically discharge and vacate this OSC without imposing any sanctions. Show Cause Response due by 10/30/2009 Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 10/20/09. (KMG, ) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
7 Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
8 ORDER That the Courts Order to Show Cause issued 10/21/09, docket 6 , is hereby DISCHARGED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 10/27/09. (MAP) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Creative Networks L.L.C. served on 10/27/2009. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
10 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT re 1 Complaint (First Request) by Creative Networks L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
11 ORDER that Defendant Creative Networks L.L.C. shall file its written election to either consent to magistrate−judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States district judge on or before Thursday, December 3, 2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 11/16/09. (KMG) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
12 ORDER pursuant to the parties' 10 Stipulation For Extension of Time To Answer Complaint: Creative Networks L.L.C. answer due 11/23/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 11/16/09. (KMG) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
13 Party Elects Assignment of Case to District Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
14 Minute Order Pursuant to Local Rule 3.8(a), a request has been received for a random reassignment of this case to a District Judge FURTHER ORDERED Case reassigned by random draw to Judge Susan R. Bolton. All further pleadings/papers should now list the following COMPLETE case number: CV 09−2023−PHX−SRB. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Meenoo Chahbazi on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 11/20/2009)

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 4 of 16

11/23/2009 11/25/2009 11/30/2009
12/11/2009 12/11/2009 12/21/2009 12/22/2009
12/23/2009 12/31/2009 01/25/2010 02/01/2010
02/02/2010
02/02/2010 02/02/2010 02/12/2010
03/18/2010 03/18/2010

16 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Creative Networks L.L.C..(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
17 ORDER setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for 1/11/2010 09:15 AM before Judge Susan R Bolton. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/24/09. (DMT, ) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
18 NOTICE TO PARTY Creative Networks, LLC OF DEFICIENCY RE CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: Pursuant to FRCiv 7.1 and LRCiv 7.1.1 the attached Corporate Disclosure Statement form must be filed by all nongovernmental corporate parties with their first appearance. A supplemental statement must be filed upon any change in the information. In addition, if not already filed, the Corporate Disclosure Statement should be filed within 15 days. Corporate Disclosure Statement Deadline set for 12/15/2009 as to Creative Networks, LLC. (MAW) (Entered: 11/30/2009)
19 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Creative Networks L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Chart)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
20 Notice re Correction of Caption by Creative Networks L.L.C. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
21 STIPULATION to Continue and Reset Pretrial Scheduling Conference by Creative Networks L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
22 ORDER that having considered the parties 21 Stipulation, it is hereby ordered that the Pretrial Scheduling Conference currently scheduled for 01/11/10 at 9:15 a.m., is hereby continued and rescheduled to 2/1/2010 at 10:45 AM. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/22/09. (ESL) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
23 Notice re Notice of Service of Discovery by Creative Networks L.L.C. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
24 Notice re Service of Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 12/31/2009)
25 REPORT re: Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
26 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Scheduling Conference held on 2/1/2010. Deadlines discussed and entered. Scheduling Order to follow. A copy of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order is provided to counsel this date. (Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke)(MAW) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
27 RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 11/19/2010. Dispositive motions due by 1/14/2011. Joint Proposed Pretrial Order due by 5/31/2011. Pretrial Conference set for 6/6/2011 09:30 AM in Courtroom 502, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Susan R Bolton. Jury Trial set for 6/14/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 502, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Susan R Bolton. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/1/10. (Note: See Order for full details)(KMG) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
28 Notice re Initial Disclosure Statement by Creative Networks L.L.C. (Blair, James) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
29 Notice re Service of Rule 26(A)(1) Initial Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
30 Notice re Service of Plaintiff EEOC's Response to Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents and of Plaintiff EEOC's Second Request for Production of Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
31 Notice re Discovery by Creative Networks, LLC (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
32 Notice re Discovery by Creative Networks, LLC (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 5 of 16

03/19/2010 03/25/2010 04/14/2010 04/19/2010 04/21/2010
04/21/2010 04/21/2010 05/27/2010 06/02/2010 06/07/2010 06/11/2010 06/14/2010
06/15/2010

33 Notice re Service of Plaintiff EEOC's Third Request for Production of Documents, EEOC's Second Set of Requests for Admissions, and EEOC's Second Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
34 NOTICE of Appearance by Tin−Tin Diana Chen on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Chen, Tin−Tin) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
35 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Creative Networks, LLC for proceedings held on 2/01/10 before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
36 Notice re Service of Discovery by Creative Networks, LLC (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
37 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Scheduling Conference held on 02/01/2010 before Judge Susan R Bolton. Court Reporter: Elizabeth A Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/12/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/24/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/20/2010. (BAS) (Entered: 04/21/2010)
38 Document filed in the incorrect case. All information associated with the entry has been removed. No regeneration necessary. Modified on 09/06/2013 (APJ). (Entered: 04/21/2010)
39 NOTICE OF CORRECTION BY THE CLERK re 38 Transcript. Description of deficiency: Document entered in wrong case. Follow up by Clerks Office: The deficiency indicated above has been addressed by the Clerk. Court use only: BAS. (DTN) (Entered: 04/21/2010)
40 Notice re Service of Discovery by Creative Networks, LLC (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
41 Notice re Discovery by Creative Networks, LLC (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
42 Minute Order: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing set for 6/14/2010 at 04:00 PM before Judge Susan R Bolton. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
43 Notice re Third Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff EEOC's First Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories by Creative Networks, LLC (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
45 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 6/14/2010 at the request of Plaintiff's counsel. Discussion held. Regarding Plaintiff's request for documents sufficient to show Defendant's net worth from January 1, 2005, to the present, such documents need not be produced in advance of trial when it becomes apparent that the issue of punitive damages will be submitted to the jury. Regarding Plaintiff's request for applicant rosters and/or documents, Plaintiff's counsel is to submit a proposed letter to Defense counsel for review that is compliant with the current allegation(s) in the complaint. Regarding Plaintiff's request for personnel files of managers and employees, Defense counsel is directed to review the requested files for the information sought by Plaintiffs counsel and provide said information, if any, to Plaintiff's counsel by June 28, 2010. Regarding Plaintiff's interrogatory #11, the response/answer already provided by Defendant will be their answer unless supplemented by Defendant. Regarding Plaintiff's request for the identification of steps taken by Defendants to investigate the allegations, the Court declines to order the production because Defendant has asserted a work product privilege. (Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke)(MAW) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
44 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Creative Networks, LLC for proceedings held on 6/14/2010 before Judge Bolton. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 06/15/2010)

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 6 of 16

06/17/2010 06/17/2010 06/21/2010
07/08/2010 07/13/2010 07/16/2010 07/19/2010
07/20/2010 07/21/2010 07/27/2010
08/11/2010 08/27/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/22/2010

46 Notice re Discovery Response by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
47 Notice re Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
48 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 06/14/2010 before Judge Susan R bolton. Court Reporter: Elizabeth A Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/12/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/22/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/20/2010. (BAS) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
49 Notice re Discovery Responses by Creative Networks, LLC (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
50 Minute Order: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing set for 7/19/2010 at 01:00 PM before Judge Susan R Bolton. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
51 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for proceedings held on 06/14/10 before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
52 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 7/19/2010 at the request of Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff's counsel advises the Court of two unresolved issues that were previously discussed on June 14, 2010. Discussion held. Regarding the personnel files, the Court directs defense counsel to produce the documents that shows the person's job title during the relevant time period, provide performance evaluations and documents with respect to termination and reasons for termination. Regarding the applicant roster/applications, the Court directs counsel to confer and prepare an agreed upon letter to be mailed. (Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke)(MAW) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
53 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Creative Networks, LLC for proceedings held on 7/19/10 before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
54 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for proceedings held on 07/19/2010 before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
55 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 07/19/2010 before Judge Susan R Bolton. Court Reporter: Elizabeth A Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/17/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/27/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/25/2010. (BAS) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
56 NOTICE re Discovery Responses by Creative Networks, LLC. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
57 NOTICE re Service of Plaintiff EEOC's Disclosure of Expert Testimony to Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
58 NOTICE of Deposition of Rosemary Padilla, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
59 NOTICE of Deposition of Tina Abbey, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
60 NOTICE of Deposition of Rochelle Duran, filed by Creative Networks, LLC. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 09/22/2010)

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 7 of 16

09/30/2010 09/30/2010 10/01/2010
10/07/2010 10/07/2010 10/11/2010 10/13/2010 10/13/2010 10/15/2010 10/20/2010
10/22/2010
10/22/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010 10/25/2010

61 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
62 NOTICE of Deposition of Jennifer Hardin, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
63 ORDER re 61 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney: On September 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff EEOC. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 10/1/10. (MAW) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
64 NOTICE of Deposition of Eva Sankey, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/07/2010)
65 NOTICE of Deposition of Bob Costello, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/07/2010)
66 NOTICE re Amended Notice of Deposition of Rochelle Duran by Creative Networks LLC. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
67 NOTICE of Deposition of Megan Neal, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
68 NOTICE of Deposition of Ron Cornelison, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
69 NOTICE re Service of Plaintiff EEOC's Rule 26(A)(1) First Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/15/2010)
70 NOTICE re Service of EEOC's Fifth Request for Production of Documents, Third Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories, and Third Set of Requests for Production by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/20/2010)
71 MOTION to Compel Applicant Information and for an Extension of Time by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
72 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 71 MOTION to Compel Applicant Information and for an Extension of Time Exhibit 6 by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
73 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC's First Supplemental Response to Requests for Production (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
74 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC's Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
75 NOTICE re Service by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC's Third Supplemental Rule 26(A)(1) Disclosure Statement. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
76 NOTICE re Service of Defendant's First Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Creative Networks LLC. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
77 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
78 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Andrea Gail Baran (Baran, Andrea) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 8 of 16

10/26/2010 10/27/2010
10/27/2010 10/27/2010
10/27/2010 10/29/2010 11/01/2010 11/02/2010 11/04/2010 11/04/2010 11/05/2010 11/05/2010 11/05/2010 11/08/2010
11/09/2010 11/09/2010 11/10/2010

79 NOTICE of Deposition of Bianca Contreras, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/26/2010)
80 NOTICE re Amended Notice of Service of Plaintiff EEOC's First Supplemental Response To Requests For Production And Of EEOC's Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 74 Certificate of Service, 73 Certificate of Service. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
81 NOTICE re Amended Notice of Service of Plaintiff EEOC's Third Supplemental Rule 26(A)(1) Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 75 Notice (Other). (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
82 ORDER re 77 that Lucila G. Rosas be withdrawn as counsel in this matter. Mary Jo O'Neill, Andrea Baran, Meenoo Chahbazi and Diana Chen shall remain as counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 10/27/10.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
83 ORDER 71 DENYING the motion for extension of time. Counsel are directed to paragraph J of the Rule 16 Scheduling Order signed by this Court on February 1, 2010. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 10/27/10.(KMG) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
84 Minute Order: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing set on 11/8/2010 at 04:30 PM before Judge Susan R Bolton. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
85 NOTICE of Deposition of Rule 30(b)(6), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
86 NOTICE of Deposition of Rule 30(b)(6) (Amended), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
87 NOTICE re Amended Notice of Deposition of Bianca Contreras by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 79 Notice of Deposition. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 11/04/2010)
88 NOTICE of Deposition of Charles Laboda, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 11/04/2010)
89 NOTICE re Amended Notice of Deposition of Ron Cornelison by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 68 Notice of Deposition. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
90 NOTICE re Amended Notice of Deposition of Ron Cornelison by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 89 Notice (Other). (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
91 NOTICE re Amended Notice of Deposition of Tina Abbey by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 59 Notice of Deposition. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
94 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 11/8/2010 held at the request of Plaintiff's counsel. The Court is advised the issue is the form of letter to be sent to the applicants, as previously discussed on July 19, 2010 52 . Discussion held. IT IS ORDERED directing counsel to each file the proposed form of letter to the Court by 2:00 p.m., November 9, 2010, and the Court will select the letter that will be sent to the applicants. (Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke)(MAW) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
92 RESPONSE re 94 Court Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) Modified on 11/10/2010 CORRECTION: as to document linkage. (KMG). (Entered: 11/09/2010)
93 NOTICE re Submission of Proposed Mailer Language by Creative Networks LLC. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
95 ORDER re 92 that Plaintiff's proposed letter shall be sent. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/10/10. (NOTE: See Order for full details)(KMG) (Entered:

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 9 of 16

11/18/2010 11/18/2010 11/18/2010 11/19/2010 01/14/2011 01/14/2011
01/25/2011 01/31/2011 01/31/2011 02/16/2011 03/03/2011
03/07/2011
03/11/2011

11/10/2010)
96 STIPULATION Regard Defendant's Undue Hardship Defense by Creative Networks LLC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
97 NOTICE of Deposition of Creative Networks, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
98 NOTICE of Deposition of Creative Networks, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
99 ORDER pursuant to the parties 96 Stipulation: that Defendant will not assert an undue hardship defense or introduce evidence of undue hardship in this case, pursuant to Sections 101 and 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12111(10) &§12112 (b)(5). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/19/10. (KMG) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
100 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
101 STATEMENT of Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re 100 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 23)(Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
102 Minute Order: Motion Hearing set for 3/21/2011 at 10:00AM before Judge Susan R Bolton re: 100 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
103 NOTICE of Appearance by Hillary K Valderrama on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Valderrama, Hillary) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
104 NOTICE re Service of Plaintiff EEOC's Fourth Rule 26(a)(1) Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Valderrama, Hillary) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
105 MOTION Pursuant to Rule 56(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., and MOTION for Hearing − Telephonic Rule 16 Scheduling Conference re 100 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support by Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 2)(McKay, Neil). Modified on 2/17/2011 MOTION for Hearing or Conference Added. (KMG). (Entered: 02/16/2011)
106 Minute Order: This case is reassigned to the Honorable David A. Ezra (Visiting Judge). All future documents filed shall include the initials DAE as part of the complete case number. Any deadlines and hearings are affirmed unless reset by subsequent separate order. Contact information for this visiting Judge is located on the Court's website under the Judges and Courtrooms tab. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (TCA) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
107 RESPONSE to Motion re 105 MOTION Pursuant to Rule 56(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., and for Telephonic Rule 16 Scheduling Conference re 100 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support and MOTION for Hearing or Conference filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Chahbazi, Meenoo) Modified on 3/8/2011 to remove text. (KMG). (Entered: 03/07/2011)
108 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney T. Diana Chen by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chahbazi,

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 10 of 16

03/16/2011
03/17/2011
03/18/2011 04/08/2011
05/03/2011 05/03/2011 05/26/2011 06/16/2011
06/28/2011 09/21/2011 10/20/2011 10/25/2011 10/27/2011 11/03/2011

Meenoo) (Entered: 03/11/2011)
109 ORDER granting 108 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. That T. Diana Chen may withdraw as counsel in this matter. Mary Jo O'Neill, Andrea G. Baran, Meenoo Chahbazi and Hillary K. Valderrama shall remain as counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge David A Ezra on 3/16/11.(KMG) (Entered: 03/16/2011)
110 REPLY to Response to Motion re 105 MOTION Pursuant to Rule 56(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., and for Telephonic Rule 16 Scheduling Conference re 100 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support MOTION for Hearing or Conference filed by Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 4)(McKay, Neil) Modified on 3/18/2011 to removed duplicate text. (KMG). (Entered: 03/17/2011)
111 Minute Entry. Hearing date of 3/21/2011 at 10:00am for 100 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby vacated. Motion will be re−set at a later date. (KMG) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
112 ORDER − the Court GRANTS Creative Networks' Rule 56(d) Request (Doc. # 105) and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 100). Additionally, in accordance with the parties' request, the Court SETS a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, as well as a status conference, at the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona on May 3, 2011 at 9:45am MST. Signed by Judge David A Ezra on 4/8/11. (KMG) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
113 NOTICE re of Service of EEOC's Sixth Request For Production of Documents and Fourth Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 05/03/2011)
114 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge David A Ezra: Status Conference held on 5/3/2011. Counsel to set up meet and confer within a week. Counsel to submit a proposed joint pretrial schedule. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference not held. (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder.)(KMG) (Entered: 05/03/2011)
115 Proposed Pretrial Order Proposed Pretrial Scheduling Order by Creative Networks LLC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
116 AMENDED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Pursuant to the parties' Joint Proposed Pretrial Schedule, all parties shall comply with the deadlines established in this Order. Discovery due by 10/28/2011. All Dispositive motions due by 12/9/2011. Joint Proposed Pretrial Order due by 3/2/2012. Signed by Judge David A Ezra on 6/16/2011. (Note: See Order for full details)(KMG) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
117 NOTICE re Supplemental Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Sixth Request for Production of Documents by Creative Networks LLC. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
118 NOTICE re Service of EEOC's Seventh Request For Production of Documents and Fifth Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
119 NOTICE re 30(b)(6) Deposition by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
120 NOTICE of Deposition of Christa Dondero, filed by Creative Networks LLC. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
121 NOTICE re Service of Plaintiff EEOC's Fifth Rule 26(A)(1) Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
122 NOTICE re Service of Discovery by Creative Networks LLC . (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 11/03/2011)

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 11 of 16

11/30/2011 12/08/2011 12/08/2011
12/09/2011 12/09/2011 01/12/2012 01/13/2012 01/19/2012 01/19/2012 01/19/2012 01/19/2012
01/26/2012
02/01/2012 02/03/2012

123 NOTICE re Non−Issues Concerning Class Claims by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
124 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
125 STATEMENT of Facts re 124 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23)(Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. by Creative Networks LLC. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
127 STATEMENT re 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. by Defendant Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 4)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
128 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motions for Partial Summary Judgment by Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 01/12/2012)
129 ORDER pursuant to 128 Stipulation : that each party shall have a one− week extension of time, or until on or before January 19, 2012, to respond to other party's pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge David A Ezra on 1/12/12. (DMT) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
130 RESPONSE to Motion re 124 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Creative Networks LLC. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
131 STATEMENT of Controverting and Additional Statement of Facts re 130 Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendant Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 5)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
132 RESPONSE to Motion re 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
133 STATEMENT of Facts in Response to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33)(Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
134 ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE − The court hereby sets a hearing on Friday, 05/18/12, at 8:30 a.m., at the Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona, in Courtroom 501, on the following:Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's 124 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendant Creative Networks' 126 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56(A), Fed. R. Civ. P.. Signed by Judge David A Ezra on 01/26/12. (ESL) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
135 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Reply to Response to Motion for Summary Judgment by Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 02/01/2012)
136 ORDER re 135 Stipulation: that each party shall have an extension of time, or until on or before February 16, 2012, to reply to the other party's pending response to

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 12 of 16

02/16/2012 02/16/2012 05/18/2012
05/18/2012 05/22/2012 05/24/2012
05/25/2012 05/29/2012 06/04/2012 06/25/2012
08/23/2012

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge David A Ezra on 2/2/2012. (KMG) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
137 REPLY to Response to Motion re 124 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
138 *REPLY to Response to Motion re 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendant Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 4)(McKay, Neil) *Modified to correct Reply type, document numbers/links corrected on 2/17/2012* (REW). (Entered: 02/16/2012)
139 TEXT ONLY Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David A Ezra: Motion Hearing held on 5/18/2012. Appearances: Meenoo Chahbazi, Mary O'Neill and Hillary Valderrama for Plaintiff; Neil McKay for Defendant. Counsel aregue their respective positions regarding 124 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and 126 Defendant Creative Network's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56(A) Fed. R. Civ. P.. The Court directs counsel to file a supplemental memorandum of no more than 15 pages within 10 days of today's proceeding as stated on the record. Defendant's counsel may have 5 days from the filing of Plaintiff's memorandum to file a responsive memorandum. The Court takes this matter under submission. (Court Reporter Laurie Adams.) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (NKS) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
140 TEXT ONLY ORDER: Pursuant to the parties' agreement to proceed with a settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge, ORDERED referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (NKS) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
141 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Creative Networks LLC for proceedings held on 5/18/2012 before Judge David Alan Ezra.. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
142 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing. Proceedings held on 5/18/2012, before Judge David A. Ezra. Court Reporter Laurie A. Adams. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 6/14/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/25/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/22/2012. (VAR) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
143 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for proceedings held on 5/18/2012 before Judge David A. Ezra.. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
144 BRIEF Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Brief Regarding the EEOC's Claim that Defendant Maintained a Policy That Was a Per Se Violation of the ADA by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Chahbazi, Meenoo) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
145 RESPONSE re 144 Brief (Non Appeal), Plaintiff EEOC's Supplemental Memorandum by Defendant Creative Networks LLC. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
146 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER − This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns for a Settlement Conference. IT IS ORDERED: All parties and their counsel who are responsible for the case SHALL physically appear before the undersigned Settlement Judge as follows: Settlement Conference is set for 8/22/2012 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 303, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns on 6/25/2012. (NOTE: See PDF for full details.)(KMG) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
147 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns: Settlement Conference held on 8/23/2012. Present were: Andrea Baran and Meenoo Chahbazi for plaintiff; Todd McKay for defendant. A court reporter was

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 13 of 16

08/28/2012
09/20/2012 11/01/2012 11/02/2012 11/05/2012 11/08/2012 11/15/2012 11/15/2012 11/16/2012
11/19/2012 01/10/2013 01/11/2013

not present nor the conference recorded. A settlement was not reached. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MHB,emc) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
148 Amended Minute Order to reflect correct date held. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns: Settlement Conference held on 8/22/2012. Present were: Andrea Baran and Meenoo Chahbazi for plaintiff; Todd McKay for defendant. A court reporter was not present nor the conference recorded. A settlement was not reached. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MHB,emc) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
149 ORDER For the reasons set forth, the Court GRANTS EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. # 124 ) and DENIES Creative Networks' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. # 126 ). Signed by Judge David A Ezra on 9/19/2012. (NOTE: See PDF for full details.)(KMG) (Entered: 09/20/2012)
150 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: Christopher R. Houk appearing for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney Meenoo Chahbazi terminated. . (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Houk, Christopher) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
151 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motions in Limine and Submit Proposed Pretrial Order by Creative Networks LLC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Valderrama, Hillary) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
152 ORDER the Parties' Joint Motion 151 for Extension of time is GRANTED. The Parties shall file Motions in Limine by January 14, 2013 and file the Proposed Pretrial Order by January 24, 2013. Signed by Judge David A Ezra on 11/2/2012.(KMG) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
153 ORDER re 150 Meenoo Chahbazi may withdraw as counsel in this matter. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher Houk is substituted for Ms. Chahbazi as counsel for Plaintiff in this matter. Signed by Judge David A Ezra on 11/7/2012. (KMG) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
154 Minute Order: Status Conference is set for Friday, November 16, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. (Hawaii Time) before the Honorable David A. Ezra. This will be a telephonic conference. All Counsel have been notified by E−Mail as to the A T &T Reservationless Voice Conference Instructions. (KMG) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
155 AMENDED Minute Order: Status Conference is set for Friday, November 16, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. (Hawaii Time) before the Honorable David A. Ezra. This will be a telephonic conference. All Counsel have been notified by E−Mail as to the A T &T Reservationless Voice Conference Instructions. (KMG) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
156 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge David A Ezra: Status Conference held on 11/16/2012. Oral Discussion Held. No Pending Motions at this Time. Discussion regarding the Status of Settlement Negotiations. Discussion regarding the setting of Court Dates for Final PreTrial Conference and Jury Trial before the Honorable David A. Ezra. Court will notify Counsel as to these Dates. Court will call Magistrate Judge Burns to discuss the Parties returning to Judge Burns for further Settlement Negotiations. (Court Reporter Cynthia Fazio.)(KMG) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
157 Minute Order: Per status conference held on 11/16/2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter be referred to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference. (KMG) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
158 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Motions in Limine by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Valderrama, Hillary) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
159 ORDER Upon the Parties' Joint Motion 158 , and in order to facilitate further pretrial settlement efforts in accordance with this Court's directives at the November 16, 2012 status conference, the Parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. The Parties shall file Motions in Limine by June 10, 2013, and file the Proposed Pretrial Order by June 20, 2013. Signed by Judge David A

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 14 of 16

01/29/2013
03/21/2013
06/03/2013 06/10/2013 06/10/2013 07/22/2013 07/29/2013
08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013

Ezra on 1/10/2013.(KMG) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
160 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns for a Settlement Conference. All parties and their counsel who are responsible for the case SHALL physically appear before the undersigned Settlement Judge, as follows: Settlement Conference is set for 3/20/2013 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 303, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns on 1/28/2013. (Note: See PDF for full details.)(KMG) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
161 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns: Settlement Conference held on 3/21/2013. Present were: Hillary Valderrama, Andrea Baran and Christopher Houk with and for plaintiff; Todd McKay for defendant. A court reporter was not present. The settlement conference was not recorded. A settlement was not reached, settlement negotiations are ongoing. Hearing held 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MHB,emc) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
162 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time for Pretrial Deadlines (Third Request) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Valderrama, Hillary) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
163 *ORDER granting 162 Joint Motion for Extension of Deadlines as follows: Proposed Pretrial Order due by 8/1/2013. Jury Trial is set for 10/7/2013 at 09:00 AM before Judge David A Ezra. Signed by Judge David A Ezra on 6/10/2013.(KMG) *Modified to replace document; NEF regenerated on 6/11/2013 (CEI). (Entered: 06/10/2013)
164 NOTICE re Service of Plaintiff EEOC's Seventh Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . (Valderrama, Hillary) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
165 MOTION for Extension of Time Unopposed Motion for Final Extension of Time by Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
166 ORDER the Unopposed Motion 165 for Final Extension of Time is GRANTED. The Parties shall file Motions in Limine by August 12, 2013, and file the Proposed Pretrial Order (as well as the verdict forms, statements of the case, voir dire, and proposed jury instructions) by August 22, 2013, in advance and anticipation of the trial in this matter set for October 7, 2013. Signed by Judge David A Ezra on 7/29/2013.(KMG) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
167 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Testimony of or Regarding Untimely Disclosed Witness Christa Dondero (No. 1) by Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 −− 3)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
168 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Tesimony of or Regarding Former Class Member Sherri Acero, and Untimely Disclosed Witness Christa Dondero (No. 2) by Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
169 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Testimony of or Regarding Cecily Colle (No. 3) by Creative Networks LLC. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
170 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Purported August 17, 2010 Letter from Former Class Member/Employee and Untimely Disclosed Witness Christa Dondero (No. 4) by Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
171 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Testimony or Evidence Regarding Backpay Computation and Supporting Information and Documentation (No. 5) by Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − 4)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
172 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Cumulative Lay Witness Testimony From Rochelle Duran's Friends and Family Regarding Her Alleged Emotional Distress

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 15 of 16

08/15/2013 08/19/2013 08/19/2013
08/19/2013 08/19/2013 08/19/2013 08/19/2013 08/20/2013 08/20/2013 08/20/2013 08/20/2013 08/23/2013

(No. 6) by Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
173 NOTICE re Service of Plaintiff EEOC's Eighth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . (Valderrama, Hillary) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
174 *SUPPLEMENT re 171 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Testimony or Evidence Regarding Backpay Computation and Supporting Information and Documentation (No. 5) by Defendant Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(McKay, Neil) *Modified to seal exhibit pending ruling on motion to seal on 8/20/2013 (JHER). (Entered: 08/19/2013)
175 ORDER that the above−styled and numbered case is hereby REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns to consider the possibility, if any, of settlement and to assist therewith as may be appropriate. The Parties SHALL physically appear before Magistrate Judge Burns at a date and time to be determined by Magistrate Judge Burns. ORDERED that the deadline to file the Proposed Pretrial Order is hereby extended to September 12, 2013. Signed by Judge David A Ezra on 8/19/2013. (LFIG) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
176 RESPONSE in Opposition re 169 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Testimony of or Regarding Cecily Colle (No. 3) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Houk, Christopher) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
177 RESPONSE in Opposition re 172 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Cumulative Lay Witness Testimony From Rochelle Duran's Friends and Family Regarding Her Alleged Emotional Distress (No. 6) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Houk, Christopher) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
178 Consent MOTION to Seal PAGES 6−7 OF 174−1 (UNOPPOSED) by Creative Networks LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
179 NOTICE re OF FILING OF REPLACEMENT EXHIBIT by Creative Networks LLC re 174 Supplement, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
180 RESPONSE in Opposition re 167 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Testimony of or Regarding Untimely Disclosed Witness Christa Dondero (No. 1) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 − 10, # 2 Exhibits 11 − 18)(Valderrama, Hillary) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
181 RESPONSE in Opposition re 170 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Purported August 17, 2010 Letter from Former Class Member/Employee and Untimely Disclosed Witness Christa Dondero (No. 4) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 − 8, # 2 Exhibits 9 − 18)(Valderrama, Hillary) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
182 RESPONSE in Opposition re 168 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Tesimony of or Regarding Former Class Member Sherri Acero, and Untimely Disclosed Witness Christa Dondero (No. 2) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 − 6)(Houk, Christopher) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
183 RESPONSE in Opposition re 171 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Testimony or Evidence Regarding Backpay Computation and Supporting Information and Documentation (No. 5) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 − 5)(Valderrama, Hillary) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
184 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER − All parties and their counsel who are responsible for the case SHALL physically appear before the undersigned Settlement Judge, Courtroom 303, Sandra Day O'Connor U. S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington, Phoenix, Arizona on September 4, 2013at 1:30 p.m. Each party shall provide the Court with the original of that party's SettlementConference Memoranda, by noon on August 29, 2013. The Settlement ConferenceMemoranda shall NOT be filed with the Clerk. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns

Case: 2:09-cv-2023 As of: 02/13/2014 05:27 PM MST 16 of 16

09/04/2013
09/12/2013 09/19/2013

on 8/23/2013. (See PDF for full details.)(KMG) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
185 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns: Settlement Conference held on 9/4/2013. Present were: Hillary Valderrama, Christopher Houk and Mary Jonell O'Neill for plaintiff; Neil Todd McKay and James Blair for defendant. A court reporter was not present, nor the settlement conference recorded. A settlement was reached. LATER: Parties are instructed to file appropriate dismissal paperwork with the Court within 14 days. Hearing held 1:40 pm to 5:45 pm. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MHB, emc) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
186 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree)(Houk, Christopher) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
187 CONSENT DECREE − This Decree resolves all claims of the Commission against Defendant, including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, interest and injunctive relief, arising out of the issues in this lawsuit. Judgment is entered in favor of the Commission and against Creative Networks in the amount of$57,500.00. Defendant shall pay a gross sum of $57,500.00 to Ms. Duran. This gross sum includes $14,375.00 in settlement of back pay and $43,125.00 in settlement of compensatory damages. The gross sum provided to Ms. Duran shall be paid no later than fourteen days from the Court's entry of the Consent Decree. Each Party shall bear its costs and attorney's fees incurred as a result of this action through the filing of this Decree. The duration of this Decree shall be two (2) years from its entry. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the duration of the Decree, during which the Commission may petition this Court for compliance with this Decree. Absent extension, this Decree shall expire by its own at the end of two (2) years from the date of entry without further action by the Parties. The parties agree to entry of this Decree and judgment subject to final approval by the Court. Signed by Judge David A Ezra on 9/19/2013. (See PDF for full details.)(KMG) (Entered: 09/19/2013)

 
 PRESS RELEASE 9-21-12
EEOC Wins Rare Summary Judgment Verdict In Disability Suit Against Creative Networks
Court Rules Employer Refused to Provide Reasonable Accommodations and Failed to Hire Hearing-Impaired Applicant
PHOENIX -- A federal judge ruled yesterday ruled in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that a Phoenix company that provides services to the disabled illegally discriminated against a hearingimpaired job applicant.
Judge David Alan Ezra of U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona held as a matter of law that Creative Networks had failed to accommodate and hire a hearing-impaired applicant, Rochelle Duran, because of her disability. In its lawsuit filed Sept. 28, 2009, the EEOC charged that Creative Networks violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by adhering to a rigid policy or practice of denying hearing-impaired applicants' requests for interpreting services costing more than $200 to complete its pre-employment orientation and training. (EEOC v. Creative Networks L.L.C., 09-CV-02023, D. Ariz.).
According to the court, "Creative Networks denied Duran an employment opportunity and the denial was based on her need for reasonable accommodations. Indeed, Defendant's failure to offer Duran reasonable accommodations foreclosed her opportunity for employment by preventing her from proceeding further in the application process."
Such conduct violates Title I of the the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits private employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, and job training, and also mandates that employers provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities absent undue hardship. With this decision by the court, the case will go to trial on the issues of damages and injunctive relief.
EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O'Neill said, "It's plainly against federal law for employers to refuse reasonable accommodations to qualified applicants and employees with disabilities. Employers should take advantage of the skills and assets that disabled individuals can offer, rather than denying them their rights under the law. Employers need to train and educate their work force on the need to treat disabled individuals lawfully and fairly rather than closing the door of opportunity on them."
Rayford O. Irvin, district director of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, added, "I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for employers to take seriously their obligation to respect the rights of disabled applicants and employees. The EEOC will continue to exercise its mission to protect the rights of workers against discrimination."
Creative Networks, with over 1,000 employees, is a Phoenix-based subsidiary of ResCare, Inc. and a company that that provides services to disabled clients.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.