Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-GWF
'-

Document 1

- Filed 09/13/2005

Page 1 of 6

1 ANNA Y. PARK, SBN 164242

/

CHERRY-MARIE D. ROJAS, CA SBN 141-42:··

2 DANA C. JOHNSON, CA SBN 187341

C' ....

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

3 OPPORIUNITY COMMISSION

255 East Tem}Jle Street, 4th Floor

4 Los Angeles CA 90012

Telephone: (2l3) 894-1091

5 FacsImile: (2l3) 894-l301

E-mail: lado.lega1@eeoc.gov

6

Attorneys for Plaintiff

7 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OP"]lORTUNITY COMMISSION

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVA

CV -S-05-1125-KJD-RJJ

11

12

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

l3

Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT • CIVIL RIGHTS

--«-I
Z
(J)
~
0

14

vs.

15 PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES, 16 INC.; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive,

17

Defendants.

18

• EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
(42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.)
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

19

NATURE OF THE ACTION

20

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

21 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the

22 basis of sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Rudolpho Lamas ("Lamas"), who

23 was adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment

24 Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") alleges that Mr. Lamas

25 was subjected to sex harassment during his employment with Defendant, Prospect

26 Airport Services, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Employer"), affecting the terms and

27 conditions of his employment. Lamas was subjected to a hostile work

28 environment by co-worker Silvia Munoz ("Ms. Munoz"). Defendant knew or

-1-

\

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-GWF

Document 1

Filed 09/13/2005
-

Page 2 of 6

1 should have known about the harassment and failed to take timely and

2 appropriate corrective action.

3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4

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

5 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345.

6

2. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f) (1)

7 and (3) of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

8 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of

9 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

10

3. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed

11 within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of

12 Nevada, Las Vegas.

13

4. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit Lamas

14 filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant.

15 The Commission has issued a Letter of Determination finding that Lamas was

16 subjected to unlawful employment discrimination based upon his sex/gender

17 (male) in violation of Title VII. All conditions precedent to the institution of this

18 lawsuit have been fulfilled.

19

PARTIES

20

5. The EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged

21 with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is

22 expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII,

23 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

24

6. At all relevant times alleged herein, Defendant, an Illinois

25 corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State of Nevada, County

26 of Las Vegas, and employs at least 15 employees.

27

7. The EEOC is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendant

28 entities sued as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore the EEOC sues said

-2-

- Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-GWF

Document 1

- Filed 09/13/2005

Page 3 of 6

1 defendant entities by such fictitious names. The EEOC reserves the right to

2 amend the complaint to name the DOE entities individually or collectively as they

3 become known. The EEOC alleges that each ofthe defendant entities named as

4 DOES was in some manner responsible for the acts and omissions alleged herein

5 and the EEOC will amend the complaint to allege such responsibility when same

6 shall have been ascertained by the EEOC.

7

8. It is further alleged on information and beliefthat the unnamed

8 defendants in the complaint are mere alter egos of the Employer.

9

9. All of the acts and failures to act alleged herein were duly performed

10 by and attributable to Employer, each acting as a successor, agent, employee or

11 under the direction and control of the others, except as specifically alleged

12 otherwise. Said acts and failures to act were within the scope of such agency

13 and/or employment.

14

10. At all relevant times, the Employer has continuously been an

15 employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of

16 Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e (b), (g) and (h).

17

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

18

11. The Commission alleges that, beginning in the summer/fall of 2002

19 and continuing until the summer of 2003, Defendant engaged in unlawful

20 employment practices at its service facility at Las Vegas International Airport, in

21 violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). As a result, a

22 co-worker repeatedly subjected Lamas to unlawful sex/gender harassment in the

23 form of visual and verbal harassment, which harassment created a hostile working

24 environment at the Employer's Las Vegas service facility. Further, the Employer

25 knew or should have known about the harassing conduct and failed to take

26 immediate and effective action to prevent the harassment despite repeated

27 complaints from Lamas.

28

12. The effect ofthe practices complained of in paragraph 11 above has

-3-

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-GWF
-

Document 1

- Filed 09/13/2005

Page 4 of 6

1 been to deprive Lamas of equal employment opportunities and otherwise 2 adversely affect his status as an employee, because of his gender/sex (male)

3 under Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

4

13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 11

5 was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of Lamas's

6 employment and create a hostile work environment.

7

14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 11

8 above were intentional.

9

15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 11

10 above were done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected

11 rights of Lamas.

12

16. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of the

13 Defendant, Lamas has suffered emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of

14 enjoyment of life, humiliation and damages, according to proof.

15

17. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts of Defendant,

16 Lamas suffered a loss of earnings in an amount according to proof.

17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

18

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

19

A. Grant a pennanent injunction enjoining the Employer, its officers,

20 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from

21 engagmg m any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of

22 gender/sex.

23

B. Order the Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices and

24 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for males, which

25 eradicate the effects of their past unlawful employment practices;

26

C. Order Defendant to make whole Lamas by providing appropriate

27 backpay with prejudgment interest, and front pay in amounts to be determined at 28 trial, and/or other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its

-4-

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-GWF Document 1 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 5 of 6

---

1 unlawful employment practices;

2

D. Order Defendant to make whole Lamas by providing compensation

3 for past and future pecuniary losses, including but not limited to losses resulting

4 from out of pocket expenses, andlor other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate

5 the effects of its unlawful employment practices;

6

E. Order Defendant to make whole Lamas by providing compensation

7 for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices

8 complained of in paragraph 11 above, including, but not limited to emotional

9 pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment oflife, and humiliation, in

10 amounts to be determined at trial;

11

F. Order Defendant to pay Lamas punitive damages for its malicious

12 and reckless conduct described in paragraph 11 above, in amounts to be

13 determined at trial.

14

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

15 the public interest; and

16

H. Award the Commission its costs ofthis action.

17 III

18 III

19 III

20 III

21 III

22 III

23 III

24 III

25 III

26 III

27 III

28 III

-5-

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-GWF Document 1 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 6 of 6
.....

1

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2

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

3 complaint.

4 5 Dated:

September 9 ,2005 Respectfully Submitted,

6

JAMES LEE

7

Deputy General Counsel

8

GWENDOLYN REAMS

Associate General Counsel

9

U. S. EOUAL EMPLOYMENT

10

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

1801 "L" Street, N.W.

11

Washington, D.C. 20507

12

u. S. EOUAL EMPLOYMENT

13

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

255 E. Temple Street, 4th Floor

14

Los Angeles, CA 90012

15 16

Iv BY:~- ~~ if) . ~

ANNAY. PARK

17

Regional Attorney

18

CHERRY-MARIE D. ROJAS

Supervisory Trial Attorney

19

DANA C. JOHNSON

20

Trial Attorney

21

Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2007 WL 2875155 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Nevada.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.
No. 2:05-01125-KJD-GWF. | Sept. 27, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Anna Park, Gregory L. McClinton, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los Angeles, CA, Lauren Blair, Chicago, IL, Wilfredo Tungol, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Honolulu Local Office, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff.
James D. Hibbard, Judah Zakalik, Timothy J. Geswein, Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC, Las Vegas, NV, Thomas W. Murphy, Pedersen & Houpt, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
KENT J. DAWSON, United States District Judge.
*1 Currently before the Court is Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.’s (“Prospect” or “Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment (# 31), filed on December 15, 2006. Plaintiff filed a Response (# 32) on January 16, 2007, and Defendants filed a Reply (# 37) on January 29, 2007.
I. Background On September 13, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a Complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, on behalf of Mr. Rudolpho Lamas (“Lamas”) alleging that Lamas was

subjected to sexual harassment during his employment with Prospect that affected the terms and conditions of his employment. EEOC alleges that Lamas was subjected to a hostile work environment by co-worker Silvia Munoz (“Munoz”). EEOC claims that Defendant Prospect knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take timely and appropriate corrective action. (See Pl.’s Compl. at 1-2).
Lamas became employed with prospect in April, 2002, where he worked until his termination on July 1, 2003. Lamas initially worked as a Passenger Service Assistant (PSA), assisting passengers with wheelchair services at the Las Vegas Airport, but soon was promoted to be a lead PSA. During the time of his employment with Prospect, Lamas alleges that another employee, Munoz-a passenger service agent/dispatcher-engaged in conduct that subjected him to a hostile work environment. Summarily, said behavior includes Munoz giving Lamas three notes, two indicating her desire to go out with him, and one indicating that Munoz had dreamed of bathing together with Lamas. Munoz asked Lamas to go out with her, and had other Prospect employees relate messages of interest to Lamas on her behalf. At one point Munoz gave Lamas a photo of herself, with her hands holding/covering her breasts and exposing her cleavage. Lamas also claims that sometime prior to leaving his employment with Prospect, Munoz kissed him on the cheek.
Lamas admits that there were times when Munoz came on to him that he did not tell her to stop, (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 136), and that he may have said certain things to her that she might have construed as him wanting to go out with her. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 25, 28.) Munoz alleges that Lamas led her to believe he was interested in dating her, that Lamas stared at her on several occasions, that other employees told her that Lamas was interested in her, and that rather than her kissing Lamas on the cheek prior to his departure as he alleges, he approached her and kissed her passionately on the lips for about one minute.
More specifically, Lamas alleges that Munoz gave him three to four notes in the summer/fall of 2002 expressing her desire to date him. Munoz gave Lamas the first note in or around November, 2002, but Lamas does not recall that the note had any sexual content. After receiving the note, Lamas went to Assistant Manager, Patrick O’Neill (“O’Neill”) to discuss the matter. According to Lamas, his
1

E.E.O.C. v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

intention in speaking with O’Neill was not to file a complaint, but to seek O’Neill’s advice on how to handle the situation. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 31-32.) Lamas testified that he discarded the note, and a day or two later told Munoz that he was not interested in a relationship with her. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 32-34.)
*2 According to Lamas, Munoz subsequently gave him a second note. Though Lamas does not recall the words of the second note, he claims that it was short-about three sentences-and contained nothing sexual, but was intended to convince him that Munoz was serious about the first note. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 36-37.) Lamas discarded the note and did not respond to Munoz about it. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 38-41.) Lamas spoke with his supervisor Rhonda Thompson (Thompson) about the note, but did not claim that Munoz was harassing him. Instead, upon Thomas questioning Lamas as to whether he felt Munoz was sexually harassing him, he answered “no”. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 120.)
Close to the time wherein Munoz gave Lamas the second note, Lamas claims that Munoz also gave him a photograph of herself in which she was holding/covering her breasts with her hands, and exposing her cleavage. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 61-62.) Lamas did not show or describe the photo to Thompson or Mitchell. Lamas gave the photo back to Munoz, and describes his reaction to it as, “I was irritated. She was bothering me, pestering me ... she was a pest.” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 64-65.) Apparently, at this time Lamas returned to Thompson to complain about the behavior of this meeting. Thompson testified that “a few days later [Lamas] came to me again and said he got an obscene picture of her-he said it was a picture of her naked and holding her breasts. He seemed like he was disturbed by it.” (Pl.’s Opp. Ex 8 p 3.) In all, Thompson testified that Lamas came to her about four times within a two to three day period before she took the matter to General Manager Dennis Mitchell (“Mitchell”). (Pl.’ Opp. Ex. 8.)
In December, Munoz gave Lamas a third note, in which Lamas describes Munoz crossed over the line regarding sexual harassment. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 38.) Specifically, in the third note, Munoz states that “I’ve been having crazy dreams about us in the bath tub, yeah in the bath tub ... It seems I cannot get you off my mind no matter how hard I try ... I do want you sexually and romantically.” (Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. Lamas 1.) At that time, Lamas did not show the third note to Thompson, however he did speak with her about it.

Lamas claims that Munoz did not speak to him for some time after giving him the third note, however several co-workers made comments to him about Munoz’s interest in a relationship with him. According to Lamas, because of these comments, he did not feel that Thompson had properly taken care of the situation and went to Mitchell in January 2003 to discuss Munoz. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 70.) Lamas showed the note to Mitchell, about which, Mitchell stated Lamas was grinning while Mitchell read it. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. C at 75.) In regard to smiling while Mitchell read the note, Lamas has explained that he may have been smiling because of his geogenetic [sic] personality, and because he smiles a lot, “even in the worst of times.” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 122-23.) Lamas testified that he believed he “made it clear to [Mitchell] that [he] was hurt by [the note] because other co-workers were now saying things, and [he]was starting to become embarrassed.” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 52-53.)
*3 Lamas advised Mitchell that he did not want to file a complaint against Munoz because he did not want her to get in trouble or to cause her embarrassment. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. C at 70-71, 108.) Instead, Lamas desired that Mitchell would talk to Munoz. Id. Mitchell met with Munoz two days later with Thompson present as a witness. Mitchell stated that during the meeting he kept the name of the complainant confidential, but informed Munoz that a male co-worker had complained in regard to Munoz pursuing him. Mitchell instructed Munoz to stop pursing the male co-worker, and that if she did not, further action would be taken. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. C at 78-79, 86.) Mitchell described that Munoz appeared embarrassed by the accusations, acknowledged her understanding of the situation, and agreed to stop pursuing the male co-worker. (Def .’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. C at 78-79, 104-05; Ex. D at 19.) Mitchell also testified however that Munoz stated that the male co-worker had pursued her. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. C at 79.)
Following the meeting, Mitchell told Lamas that he had met with Munoz and had taken care of the problem. Lamas testified however that after his meeting with Mitchell, Munoz continued to make comments to him in passing such as “Hey Hey,” “Whew Whew,” “I was thinking about you last night,” “Do you want to have some fun?” and “Do you want to get together?” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 67-70.) Lamas also alleges that Munoz made non-verbal gestures such as making faces, “licking her lips,” and making “blow job
2

E.E.O.C. v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

imitations.” (Lamas Depo 70:3-12; 113: 7-11). Lamas also alleges that on May 13, 2003, Munoz twice asked him to go out with her. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 105-06.)
When asked if Munoz ever touched him inappropriately, Lamas testified that between February and May 2003, Munoz kissed him on the cheek on the lower level of the airport when no one else was around. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 109-11.) Other than the alleged kiss, Lamas states that Munoz did not engage in any other inappropriate touching.
II. Standard of Law for Summary Judgment Summary judgment may be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine factual issue for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
All justifiable inferences must be viewed in the light must favorable to the nonmoving party. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. However, the nonmoving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his or her pleadings, but he or she must produce specific facts, by affidavit or other evidentiary materials provided by Rule 56(e), showing there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The court need only resolve factual issues of controversy in favor of the non-moving party where the facts specifically averred by that party contradict facts specifically averred by the movant. See Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n., 497 U.S. 871, 888, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990); see also Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 345 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that conclusory or speculative testimony is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact to defeat summary judgment). “[U]ncorroborated and self-serving testimony,” without more, will not create a “genuine issue” of material fact precluding summary judgment. Villiarimo v. Aloha Island

Air Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir.2002).
*4 Summary judgment shall be entered “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Summary judgment shall not be granted if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
III. Analysis As stated above, the EEOC, on behalf of Lamas, has filed a claim against Prospect, alleging that Prospect engaged in unlawful employment practices at its service facility at Las Vegas International Airport, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), and that as a result, employee Lamas was repeatedly subject to unlawful sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. The EEOC further alleges that Prospect knew or should have known about the harassing conduct and failed to take immediate and effective action to prevent the harassment.
1. Hostile Work Environment Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To prevail on a hostile work environment claim premised on either race or sex, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he/she was subject to verbal or physical conduct of a racial or sexual nature; (2) that the conduct was unwelcome; and (3) that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the plaintiff’s employment and create an abusive work environment. See Gregory v. Widnall, 153 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.1998). Defendant has moved for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of sexual discrimination based on a hostile work environment. Defendant alleges that the environment suffered by Plaintiff was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the Plaintiff’s employment or create an abusive working environment.
The Supreme Court has suggested that District Courts consider “all the circumstances” of a Title VII violation claim to determine whether an environment is hostile or abusive, including the following factors; (1) the frequency
3

E.E.O.C. v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

of the discriminatory conduct; (2) its severity; (3) whether the conduct is physically threatening, humiliating, or merely an offensive utterance; and (4) whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has advised that district courts may properly look to the EEOC Guidelines when examining hostile work environment harassment claims. See Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). The EEOC Guidelines describe hostile work environment harassment as, “[c]onduct [which] has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.” Id. citing 29 C.F.R. § 1604 .11(A)(3)(1985).
*5 The sexual harassment analysis requires both an objective and subjective test. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). To be actionable, the conduct at issue must be sufficiently severe and pervasive (a) as perceived by a reasonable victim; and (b) as actually perceived by the plaintiff. Id. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has adopted a “reasonable woman,” and “reasonable man” standard when applying the objective prong. See Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 897 (9th Cir.1991). More recent cases however, have stated that the determination of “whether the workplace is objectively hostile must be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with the same fundamental characteristics.” Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir.1995).
In order for an employer to be liable for the conduct of an employee-coworker, as opposed to a supervisor, the “plaintiff must prove that the employer was negligent, i.e., that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment but did not take adequate steps to address it.” Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794 (9th Cir.2001) (citing Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enters., 256 F.3d 864, 875 (9th Cir.2001).
A. Frequency, Severity, and Type of Conduct Together, the harassment Plaintiff alleges consists of three or four notes given to Lamas by Munoz between the dates of November 2002, to August 2003, (only one of which was sexual in nature), that Munoz asked him out on three to four occasions, that Munoz showed him a photo of her cleavage, that Munoz asked co-workers to relay messages

of interest to him or to find out if he was interested in her, that Munoz made flirtatious comments and non-verbal gestures to him in passing, and that on one occasion Munoz kissed him on the cheek.
In considering the alleged harassing conduct Plaintiff asserts in light of “all of the circumstances” of the case, the Court does not find Defendants’ behavior to be severe enough to sustain Plaintiff’s Title VII claim on Lamas’s behalf. Here, the most offensive portion of Munoz’s alleged actions, showing Lamas a revealing photograph, giving him a note referring to sex, or kissing him on the cheek, pales in comparison to other conduct found to be severe enough to create a hostile work environment. See, e.g. Henderson v. Simmons Foods, Inc., 217 F.3d 612, 616 (8th Cir.2000) (groping and shoving broom handle in crotch); Bailey v. Runyon, 167 F.3d 466, 467 (8th Cir.1999) (grabbing crotch); Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 162 F.3d 1062, 1067 (10th Cir.1998) (putting mouth on breast); Zimmerman v. Cook County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 96 F.3d 1017, 1018 (7th Cir.1996) (grabbing breast and rubbing buttocks); Varner v. Nat’l Super Markets, Inc., 94 F.3d 1209, 1211 (8th Cir .1996) (grabbing breasts); Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 472 (5th Cir.1989) (grabbing breasts and directing high pressure hose at crotch); Hall v. Gus Construction Co., Inc., 842 F.2d 1010, 1012 (8th Cir.1988) (rubbing thighs and grabbing breasts); Bohen v. City of East Chicago, 799 F.2d 1180, 1182 (7th Cir.1986) (pressing hands against crotch); Jones v. Wesco Invs., 846 F.2d 1154, 1155 (8th Cir.1986) (touching breasts, putting hand up dress, pinching and patting buttocks, and kissing on lips).
*6 Viewing the allegations of Munoz’s behavior described by Lamas, as well as the facts described by all parties in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, while applying the reasonable person standard-or stated more accurately, the standard of a reasonable person with Lamas’s same fundamental characteristics-the Court does not find that the alleged harassment rises to a level sufficiently severe and pervasive to sustain Plaintiff’s Title VII claim. Lamas admits that most men in his circumstances would have “welcomed” the behavior he alleged was discriminatory, but that due to his Christian background he was “embarrassed.” (Def.’s Mot. For Summ, J. Ex. Lamas 2.) Moreover, in its opposition, the EEOC states that Munoz’s actions were “not severe,” arguing instead, that “the required showing of severity or seriousness of the harassing conduct varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct.” (Pl.’s Opp. at 8.)
4

E.E.O.C. v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

Here, the Court does not find the pervasiveness or frequency of the alleged harassment to be sufficient to withstand summary judgment. Lamas has admitted that he did not feel Munoz crossed the line of sexual harassment until she wrote the third note in or around August of 2002. Allegedly, the photograph incident occurred around this same time. The alleged kiss on the cheek occurred between February to May 2003. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 109.) The alleged subsequent incidents of Munoz asking Lamas to go out with her occurred in May 2003. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to state the number of occasions the alleged flirtatious comments and gestures occurred in passing between January and July 2003.
Taken independently or together, the Court cannot find, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff’s allegations of harassment constitute a hostile or abusive environment.
B. Interference with Work Performance As touched on above, “[t]o assert a Title VII claim based on a hostile work environment, a plaintiff must allege a ‘pattern of ongoing and persistent harassment severe enough to alter the conditions of employment. The working environment must ‘both subjectively and objectively be perceived as abusive’ because of the harassment.” Burrell v. Star Nursery, Inc., 170 F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir.1999). A careful consideration of the instant case in light of all of the circumstances demonstrates that Munoz’s alleged harassment did not alter the Conditions of Lamas’s employment.
The Court notes that Lamas never filed a formal complaint against Munoz, although asked by both his supervisor Thompson, and General Manager Mitchell on separate occasions if he desired to do so. When asked by Thompson whether he felt Munoz was sexually harassing him, Lamas answered “no.” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 120.) Furthermore, Mitchell reports that Lamas was “smiling” when he showed him (Mitchell) the third note, and Lamas admits that he might have said certain things to Munoz that she might have construed as him wanting to go out with her. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 25, 28.) Overall, and throughout his deposition, Lamas describes his attitude regarding Munoz and her behavior toward him as “irritated,” that he felt Munoz was a “pest”, and that she was “bothering” and “pestering” him. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 64-65.) He never alleges that his work environment was altered due to Munoz’s behavior. Instead, he states that he was “hurt” and/or “embarrassed” by the notes because co-workers were

asking him and teasing him about the situation. When asked whether his job performance was negatively affected by the harassment with respect to certain disciplinary measures, Lamas stated that he “does not know.” (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 145-46; 148-49.) Furthermore, Lamas confirmed that Munoz’s alleged harassment did not stop him from performing the basic requirements of his job; he claims that it just made him less cheerful. (Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. A at 115-16.)
*7 Plaintiff’s allegations of Munoz’s sexual harassment did not effect Lamas’s working conditions to the degree required to sustain an action for hostile work environment. Though subjectively Lamas admits that he found the behavior bothering, or pestering, and that it made him less cheerful, he does not claim that the alleged behavior interfered with his work or altered the conditions of his employment. Moreover, as touched upon above, the Court does not find the alleged behavior sufficiently severe or pervasive to have created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
C. Alleged Employer Indifference According to the undisputed facts before the Court, Lamas brought Munoz’s behavior to the attention of his supervisor Thompson four times within a two to three day period, after which Thompson arranged a meeting between Lamas and General Manager Dennis Mitchell .1 Lamas also claims that he mentioned the third note to O’Neill. Both Thompson and Mitchell asked Lamas if he was making a claim of sexual harassment. Lamas stated that he was not, and that he did not want to file a claim or complaint. He only wished for his supervisors to speak with Munoz. According to Thompson and Mitchell, soon after meeting with Lamas, Mitchell and Thompson met with Munoz, with Thompson present as a witness, and told Munoz to stop pursuing Lamas. At this point there is a discrepancy in the record; Lamas claims that following the meeting between Mitchell, Thompson, and Munoz, Munoz continued making flirtatious statements and non-verbal gestures to him.2 Lamas also claims that he reported said actions to Thompson and Mitchell, although when questioned regarding specific dates and the number of times he spoke with them he could not recall.3 Thompson and Mitchell however, both state that Lamas made no other allegation of misconduct. Therefore, whether Lamas reported Munoz’s ongoing alleged discrimination is an issue that cannot be decided by the Court; however, in light of all other circumstances and
5

E.E.O.C. v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

evidence, the Court does not find the resolution of said issue to be material here.

1

It is disputed whether Thompson was present at the

January 2003, meeting between Lamas and Mitchell.

Thompson’s account states that she was present,

Lamas’s account states that only he an Mitchell were

present. The Court however, is less concerned that

Thompson may or may not have been present, so much

as it is concerned that Thompson helped arrange or

encourage that the meeting take place.

2

The Court notes that Lamas never showed the photo to

any of his supervisors, and that Lamas never told

anyone about the alleged kiss on the cheek Munoz gave

him.

3

Lamas alleges that following his meeting with Mitchell,

he “always,” or “consistently” complained about

Munoz’s behavior.

Even viewing all allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the EEOC has failed to demonstrate that Prospect knew or should have known of Munoz’s alleged harassment but did not take adequate steps to address it. Lamas never filed a complaint of sexual harassment. There is no evidence on file, in his record, or anywhere at Prospect that Lamas wanted to file a complaint of sexual harassment. Instead, when Lamas was asked whether he wanted to file a claim or complaint for sexual harassment, he replied “no.” Moreover, upon receiving several informal complaints from Lamas, Thompson set up a meeting for Lamas with General Manager Mitchell. Mitchell agreed to, and met with Munoz to inform her that her behavior was inappropriate. Mitchell also informed her that further action would be

taken if her behavior persisted. Though Lamas now claims that Munoz continued to make comments and gestures to him in passing, there is no evidence, that Lamas ever filed a claim regarding Munoz’s continuing behavior.4

4

In his deposition, Lamas alleged that he informed

Mitchell in a letter that the harassment was continuing.

A close review of the letter however does not support

Lamas’s claim. The Court finds that the letter is

insufficient to have put Mitchell on notice that Lamas’s

allegations of harassment by Munoz were continuing.

The letter, written in response to other disciplinary

matters Lamas had encountered, uses the term

“harassment” to describe how several workers on the

floor felt about the manner in which supervisor Robert

Gonzales treated and let go of employees.

*8 Therefore, even viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the Court does not find that Prospect supervisors failed to take adequate steps to address Munoz’s alleged harassment of Lamas.

IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (# 31) is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter JUDGMENT for Defendant.
	  

6

 
 Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-GWF
AO450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

Document 46

Filed 09/27/2007 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Plaintiff, V.
Prospect Airport Services, Inc., et al.,

DISTRICT OF

Nevada

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Case Number: 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-GWF

Defendants.
Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered for the Defendant and against the plaintiff.

September 27, 2007
Date

/s/ Lance S. Wilson
Clerk
/s/ Andrew Mennear
(By) Deputy Clerk

 
 Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 1 of 20

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY



COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.

PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES, INC,
 Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-17221
D.C. No. CV-05-01125-
KJD/GWF
OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 16, 2009—San Francisco, California
Filed September 3, 2010
Before: Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Kleinfeld

13377

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 2 of 20

13380

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

COUNSEL
Dori K. Bernstein, U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, Office of General Counsel, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.
Thomas W. Murphy (argued), Lauren Blair (briefed), Pedersen & Houpt, Chicago, Illinois, for the appellee.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 3 of 20

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES OPINION

13381

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:

This is a sexual harassment case in which a male employee was the victim of a female co-worker.

I. Facts.

The district court granted summary judgment against the plaintiff, so we recite the facts in accord with the cognizable evidence presented by the plaintiff, to determine whether, if a jury accepted his account, he could recover.1 We review summary judgment de novo.2

The plaintiff, Rudolpho Lamas, and the alleged harasser, Sylvia Munoz, worked for Prospect Airport Services, Inc. They worked at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas helping passengers who needed wheelchairs. Lamas was promoted from “passenger service assistant” to “lead passenger service assistant.”3 His wife died September 17, 2001, so at the times relevant to this case he was a recent widower.4 He started working for Prospect the next spring, in April 2002.5

That fall, a married co-worker, Sylvia Munoz, began a series of rejected sexual overtures. Although Lamas had never asked her out or otherwise made overtures to her, she handed him love notes and made remarks to him that “hurt” him and were “embarrassing.”6 “And she was insistent and it bothered

1See Craig v. M & O Agencies, Inc., 496 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007).
2Id. 3Lamas Dep. at 14. 4ER Vol 2 at 40, 42; Lamas Dep. at 6, 26. 5Lamas Dep. at 14. 6ER Vol. 2 at 42; Lamas Dep. at 25.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 4 of 20

13382

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

me.”7 When he asked her why she thought he was interested, she said she had heard from another coworker that he missed coming home to a family. The context had been that he was still in mourning about his wife, but Munoz thought it meant he was looking for female companionship. In his deposition, he cried as he recounted this.8 She said that he had once mentioned as they passed in a Jetway that he was single, she had asked her husband if that meant he was flirting with her, and her husband said that it did.9 She subsequently wrote and hand-delivered a note to him that he interpreted as a “flirtatious come-on.”10 It was the first of three or four notes.

The first note, which Munoz handed to Lamas around mid-
to-late November, said she was “turned on” and wanted to “go out.”11 Lamas interpreted it as a “basic flirtatious come-
on” and an “unwanted flirtatious advance” and told her he was not interested.12 She asked “why not?” and he replied that he just was not interested.13

Lamas was bothered by the note, so he informed their boss, Assistant General Manager Patrick O’Neill.14 O’Neill advised
Lamas to tell Munoz that the romantic interest was not mutual
and that Lamas should let Prospect’s managers know if she kept it up, so that they could take care of it.15 Lamas did not
want to make a complaint against Munoz, he just wanted the overtures to stop.16

7ER Vol. 2 at 42; Lamas Dep. at 25. 8ER Vol. 2 at 42; Lamas Dep. at 25-26. 9ER Vol. 2 at 42-43; Lamas Dep. at 26-27. 10ER Vol 2 at 44; Lamas Dep. at 32. 11ER Vol. 2 at 44; Lamas Dep. at 32, 34. 12ER Vol. 2 at 44; Lamas Dep. at 32 -34. 13ER Vol. 2 at 44; Lamas Dep. at 33-34. 14ER Vol. 2 at 44; Lamas Dep. at 31-32. 15ER Vol. 2 at 44; Lamas Dep. at 32. 16Lamas Dep. at 155-58.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 5 of 20

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES Taking O’Neill’s advice, Lamas told Munoz:

13383

I’m not interested. You’re married. And I don’t want to get involved in something like that. And, you know, I’m just not looking for any kind of thing like that right now. So I wouldn’t be interested in it. But, you know, I read the note. . . . I read it. But I’m not interested.17

Lamas did not feel his work environment had become abusive
at that point, he just did not want to have a relationship with her.18

But she did not stop. A few days later, Munoz handed
Lamas a second note saying she was serious and he should give her a chance.19 He still did not feel his work environment
had become abusive, he just did not want a relationship with her and wanted her to stop. He read and discarded the note.20

But she did not stop. Munoz approached Lamas in the park-
ing lot and handed him a picture of herself, “a head and
shoulders-type shot with a pressing together of the breasts
. . . . no clothing on that portion . . . . the cleavage of the breasts sort of together.”21 He gave the picture back to her, and was “irritated. She was bothering me, pestering me.”22 He told her “I’ve told you already, I’m not interested.”23 Lamas
told a friend that Munoz’s advances were “weight on my shoulders,” and “just terrible.”24

17ER Vol. 2 at 44; Lamas Dep. at 33. 18Lamas Dep. at 38. 19Lamas Dep. at 36-38. 20Lamas Dep. at 38. 21ER Vol. 2 at 49; Lamas Dep. at 60-62. 22ER Vol. 2 at 50; Lamas Dep. at 63-64. 23ER Vol. 2 at 50; Lamas Dep. at 64, 66. 24ER Vol. 2 at 50; Lamas Dep. at 65.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 6 of 20

13384

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

Lamas then went to his immediate boss, Ronda Thompson, about the problem. He “wanted her to follow the company procedure to put a stop to it.”25 He told his boss that Munoz “was making these unwanted advances,” things were “out of hand,” and the harassment was hurtful.26 Thompson told him that she would talk to Munoz and would inform Prospect’s general manager, Dennis Mitchell, of the problem.27 But Ronda Thompson did not do either, and Munoz kept it up.

Munoz gave Lamas a third note, and at this point he felt his work environment had become abusive.28 This time Munoz wrote Lamas that she was having “crazy dreams about us in the bathtub” and boasted that she gave a “very good bath wash and body massage.”29 Lest there be any doubt, Munoz said “I do want you sexually and romantically”:

Dear R.,

I guess this is the only form off [sic] communication we have. I try to call you one night about three weeks ago when I was thinking of you. They said that you moved! I’ve been thinking of you a lot lately. I’ve been having crazy dreams about us in the bath tub yeah in the bath tub. Must be my Aunt’s cooking. (Ha, Ha). I’ve been wanting to ask you, but you have been under a lot of stress with southwest and work. It is time to unwind and be stress free. I give out very good bath wash and body massage. It sounds a little crazy but everyone has a little craziness in them! I would love to see you on and off. Yes, I’ve been thinking about you more ways then

25ER Vol. 2 at 45; Lamas Dep. at 39, 41. 26ER Vol. 2 at 45; Lamas Dep. at 40, 46. 27ER Vol. 2 at 44, 46; Lamas Dep. at 40, 47. 28Lamas Dep. at 38. 29ER Vol. 2 at 62.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 7 of 20

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

13385

[sic] one. It seems to me I cannot get you off my mind no matter how hard I try! I hope you will consider? I’ll take care of you, you take care of me! Please let me know soon not later! Seriously, I do want you sexually and romantically!

Con amor (with love), S.30

In January or February, after several months of Munoz’s pressure and after he had received the third note, Lamas talked to the supervisor next up the chain, Dennis Mitchell.31 By now Munoz had recruited co-workers who were telling Lamas that Munoz loved him and wanted him, and he was telling the messengers that the interest was not mutual.32 “[C]o-workers were now saying things, and I was starting to become embarrassed.”33 He suspected (correctly) that his boss, Ronda Thompson, had not talked to Munoz despite telling him that she would, so Lamas called Prospect’s manager at the airport, Dennis Mitchell.34 Lamas gave Mitchell the note and asked him to tell Munoz to stop sending letters and “making advances.”35 In response, Mitchell told Lamas that he “did not want to get involved in personal matters.”36 Lamas did not file a written complaint against Munoz (the company’s sexual harassment policy did not require a written complaint),37 but asked that Munoz be made to stop.38

30ER Vol. 2 at 62. 31ER Vol. 2 at 47; Lamas Dep. at 51-53. 32ER Vol. 2 at 46; Lamas Dep. at 50-51. 33ER Vol. 2 at 47; Lamas Dep. at 53. 34ER Vol. 2 at 48; Lamas Dep. at 55; ER Vol. 2 at 70-71, 101, 103, 106; Mitchell Dep. at 79-80, 85-86. 35ER Vol. 2 at 99; Mitchell Dep. at 70. 36ER Vol. 2 at 99; Mitchell Dep. at 70. 37ER Vol. 2 at 68. 38ER Vol. 2 at 59; Lamas Dep. at 125-26.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 8 of 20

13386

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

Mitchell agreed to speak to Munoz as “a favor.”39 He
acknowledged that Munoz’s “sloppy love letter” was a violation of Prospect’s sexual harassment policy.40 A few days later
Mitchell ran into Munoz and met with her and Ronda Thompson.41 He told Munoz that he knew she was “pursuing a
coworker . . . and the [ ] coworker wanted these advances to stop.”42 Munoz nodded.43 He told her that “if I hear any more
—if this is brought up again and I hear that [ ] it is continuing, I would have to take action.”44 This was in late January or early February of 2003.45

But Munoz did not stop. Every time Lamas walked by her at work, there was “something, some gesture some ‘Hey, hey’ wording or ‘Whew, whew,’ ” licking her lips suggestively, and asking if Lamas “want[ed] to have some fun.”46 Munoz performed “blow job imitations.”47 Lamas “hated it” because “[i]t was just constantly something,” “[i]t was like pressure,” and offensive.48 Instead of occasional approaches, she now harassed Lamas every day.49 Munoz also had co-workers deliver messages to Lamas about going on dates, that Munoz “was going to get” Lamas “no matter what,” and other “hurtful, embarrassing things” that caused Lamas to feel “constant pressure” at work.50 This continued through the spring of 2003.

39ER Vol. 2 at 99; Mitchell Dep. at 70. 40ER Vol. 2 at 100; Mitchell Dep. at 73. 41ER Vol. 2 at 100-01; Mitchell Dep. at 76-77. 42ER Vol. 2 at 101; Mitchell Dep. at 78. 43ER Vol. 2 at 101; Mitchell Dep. at 78. 44ER Vol. 2 at 103; Mitchell Dep. at 86. 45ER Vol. 2 at 50; Lamas Dep. at 63. 46ER Vol. 2 at 51, 56; Lamas Dep. at 67, 70, 113. 47ER Vol. 2 at 56; Lamas Dep. at 113. 48ER Vol. 2 at 51, Lamas Dep. at 67. 49ER Vol. 2 at 51; Lamas Dep. at 67-68. 50ER Vol. 2 at 60; Lamas Dep. at 167.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 9 of 20

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

13387

At about this time, co-workers began to speculate that Lamas was a homosexual.51 In addition to Munoz’s remarks
and gestures, Lamas had to face co-workers’ remarks to the effect that he was gay. Lamas felt helpless and was crying.52 He consulted a psychologist about his distress.53 But things
kept getting worse. He complained to four different Prospect
management officials about Munoz’s harassment, but nothing was done to stop it.54 Patrick O’Neill, Prospect’s assistant
general manager, said the harassment “was a joke” and that
Lamas should “walk around singing to yourself . . . I’m too sexy for my shirt.”55 Lamas did not feel a song in his heart.
He felt “bound and gagged” because “[n]obody listened” and Prospect “just wouldn’t do anything.”56

Meanwhile, Munoz kept it up. Munoz approached Lamas in May 2003 when he was helping elderly passengers, a gentleman and his wife, with a wheelchair for the husband.57 Continuing more than six months of pressure to have sex, Munoz asked Lamas to join her for a date, and said she had been lacking in sexual gratification because she and her husband had separated.58 Munoz’s comments embarrassed the elderly man’s wife as well as Lamas.59

Lamas had previously done well on the job. He had been promoted to lead passenger service assistant.60 Munoz’s refer-
ence to Lamas being “under a lot of stress with southwest and

51Lamas Dep. at 167. 52Lamas Dep. at 167-68. 53Lamas Dep. at 168. 54ER Vol. 2 at 52-54; Lamas Dep. at 71, 87, 89. 55ER Vol. 2 at 53-54, Lamas Dep. at 86-87. 56ER Vol. 2 at 60; Lamas Dep. at 167, 168. 57ER Vol. 2 at 55-56; Lamas Dep. at 110-113. 58ER Vol. 2 at 55-56; Lamas Dep. at 110-113. 59ER Vol. 2 at 55-56; Lamas Dep. at 110-113; ER Vol. 2 at 67. 60ER Vol. 2 at 21.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 10 of 20

13388

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

work” in her I-give-good-bath-wash letter61 referred to one of Lamas’s job assignments. Southwest Airlines had threatened to end Prospect’s contract, so the Prospect managers assigned Lamas to work the Southwest concourse in an attempt to save it, “because they believed I was the best performer.”62 But, according to Lamas, the psychological distress because of the “constant pressure” from Munoz made his performance suffer. When it was a bad day, the customers would pick up on it, “[s]o in that sense it interfered with my ability to perform the job up to the standard I wanted to perform the job.”63 In March, after four or five months of harassment and no protection from management, Prospect demoted Lamas because of “complaints about [ ] job performance and negative attitude.”64

Prospect fired Lamas in June, for failing to provide wheel
chair assistance to a passenger, poor attitude, and “lack of willingness to provide quality customer service.”65 Lamas
attributes his diminished work performance to the stress caused by more than half a year of harassment.66

Prospect has a sexual harassment policy which both Lamas and Munoz signed. The policy specifies, under the heading “Complaint Procedure,” that “[a]ny incident, which may be a violation of this policy, should be promptly reported to your supervisor.”67 There was no requirement that the report be in writing or that it seek any discipline against the person doing the harassing. The policy says Prospect “will investigate each complaint in a prompt and proper fashion” and that complaints will be kept confidential to the extent possible.68 Pros-

61ER Vol. 2 at 62. 62ER Vol. 2 at 46; Lamas Dep. at 49.. 63ER Vol. 2 at 55; Lamas Dep. at 115-116. 64ER Vol. 2 at 86. 65ER Vol. 2 at 87. 66ER Vol. 2 at 55; Lamas Dep. at 115-116; Lamas Dep. at 149. 67ER Vol. 2 at 68. 68ER Vol. 2 at 68.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 11 of 20

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

13389

pect’s human resources manager testified that this means an “immediate review” and investigation.69 Munoz was not disciplined (even though men had been fired under the policy, in one case for sexually harassing a woman,70 in another for looking at pornography on the job).71 Lamas filed an EEOC complaint. The EEOC determined that Lamas was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment. The EEOC, not Lamas, is the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

The district court granted Prospect’s motion for summary judgment.72 The district court concluded that as a matter of law Munoz’s conduct was not severe and pervasive enough to amount to sexual harassment objectively for a reasonable man, noting that “Lamas admits that most men in his circumstances would have ‘welcomed’ the behavior he alleged was discriminatory, but that due to his Christian background he was ‘embarrassed.’ ”73 The court emphasized that Lamas had never filed a written complaint, and management had told Munoz that her behavior was inappropriate.74

The EEOC appeals.

II. Analysis.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.75 All reason-
able inferences “upon which a reasonable jury might return a verdict” must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.76

69Claypool Dep. at 55. 70Claypool Dep. at 58. 71Mitchell Dep. at 47-48. 72ER Vol. 1 at 13. 73ER Vol. 1 at 10. 74ER Vol. 1 at 11-12. 75Craig v. M & O Agencies, Inc., 496 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). 76Id.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 12 of 20

13390

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

Summary judgment may only be granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

[1] Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment.77 Both sexes are protected from discrimination.78 To survive summary judgment, the respondent must submit cognizable evidence sufficient to establish a jury question on whether the victim (1) was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, (2) that was unwelcome; and (3) that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.79 The respondent must present sufficient evidence for a jury question on whether the work environment was “both objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile and one that the victim in fact did perceive to be so.”80

1. Conduct of a Sexual Nature

[2] Whether Lamas was subjected to “verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”81 is an easy question. Munoz

7742 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB, v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). The only claim before this court is the EEOC’s hostile work environment claim.
78Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 210 (1976) (invalidating a state law that created different legal drinking ages for men and women as unconstitutionally discriminatory); Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 78 (1998) (“Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination because of sex protects men as well as women. . . .”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
79Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir. 1995); see also M & O Agencies, 496 F.3d at 1055.
80Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 871-72 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787 (1998)).
81Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1527.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 13 of 20

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

13391

propositioned him for sex. Munoz wrote to him that she dreamed of him in a bath, that she gave good “body wash,” and that she wanted him “sexually.” She performed gestures simulating fellatio, and gave him a photograph of herself emphasizing her breasts and possibly without clothes on. Her proposition was for sex, not a cup of coffee together. After she recruited coworkers to pressure Lamas, they mocked him by suggesting that he was homosexual.

2. Welcomeness.

[3] It cannot be assumed that because a man receives sexual advances from a woman that those advances are welcome. Lamas suggested this might be true of other men (the district court decision noted that Lamas “admits that most men in his circumstances would have ‘welcomed’ ” her advances). But that is a stereotype and welcomeness is inherently subjective,82 (since the interest two individuals might have in a romantic relationship is inherently individual to them), so it does not matter to welcomeness whether other men might have welcomed Munoz’s sexual propositions.

It would not make sense to try to treat welcomeness as objective, because whether one person welcomes another’s sexual proposition depends on the invitee’s individual circumstances and feelings. Title VII is not a beauty contest, and even if Munoz looks like Marilyn Monroe, Lamas might not want to have sex with her, for all sorts of possible reasons. He might feel that fornication is wrong, and that adultery is wrong as is supported by his remark about being a Christian. He might fear her husband. He might fear a sexual harassment complaint or other accusation if her feelings about him changed. He might fear complication in his workday. He might fear that his preoccupation with his deceased wife would take any pleasure out of it. He might just not be

82Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 873 (9th Cir. 2001).

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 14 of 20

13392

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

attracted to her. He may fear eighteen years of child support payments. He might feel that something was mentally off about a woman that sexually aggressive toward him. Some men might feel that chivalry obligates a man to say yes, but the law does not.

That is not to say that there is nothing objective about welcomeness. For the conduct to be unwelcome for purposes of employer’s liability for not stopping it,83 unwelcomeness has to be communicated. Sometimes the past conduct of the individuals and the surrounding circumstances may suggest that conduct claimed to be unwelcome was merely part of a continuing course of conduct that had been welcomed warmly until some promotion was denied or employment was terminated. That is a credibility issue.84

[4] But here Lamas unquestionably established a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the conduct was welcome. Lamas swore under oath that it was not. It made him cry, both at the time and repeatedly in the deposition. He sought medical services to deal with the anxiety it caused him. Lamas had no prior romantic or sexual relationship with Munoz. He did not approach her. He told her expressly and plainly that he did not want a relationship with her. He explained his troubled response plausibly, as stemming from his Christian beliefs and his recent widowhood. Some recipients of sexual advances doubtless have difficulty coming up with a tactful way to refuse them without damaging their ability to get along at work, so unwelcomeness may in some cases be unclear. Here, though, Lamas repeatedly told Munoz “I’m not interested” and that he was “just not looking for any kind of thing like that” yet she kept making the sexual overtures she knew were unwelcome.

83See Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 924 (9th Cir. 2000). 84See Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 68 (1986).

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 15 of 20

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES 3. Severe or pervasive.

13393

Title VII is not a “general civility code.”85 A violation is not established merely by evidence showing “sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing.”86 A violation is established when the unwelcome sexual conduct is “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”87 Whether a working environment is objectively “abusive” ”can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances,” which “may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. . . . [N]o single factor is required.”88 The “severe or pervasive” element has both objective and subjective components. We consider not only the feelings of the actual victim, but also “assume the perspective of the reasonable victim.”89 There is a subjective requirement as well as an objective requirement, because “if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment.”90

Not all propositions for romance or more are sexual harass-

85Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998).
86Id.; see also Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 82 (1998) (distinguishing “simple teasing” from conduct which creates a hostile work environment); Candelore v. Clark County Sanitation Dist., 975 F.2d 588, 590 (9th Cir. 1992) (“isolated incidents of sexual horseplay” did not create a hostile work environment); Jordan v. Clark, 847 F.2d 1368, 1374-75 (9th Cir. 1988) (men and women telling “off-color” jokes at work did not create an abusive environment).
87Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (quoting Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986)).
88Id. at 23.
89Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 924 (9th Cir. 2000).
90Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 16 of 20

13394

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

ment. People spend most of their waking hours with other people at their workplaces, so that is where many meet and begin social relationships, and someone has to make the first overture. Some people have more social finesse than others, and many might suggest coffee or a trip to an art exhibition rather than sex, but mere awkwardness is insufficient to establish the “severe or pervasive” element. Had Munoz merely asked Lamas to go out on a date, or to see whether they might have a romantic relationship, or straightforwardly propositioned him for sex, and then quit when he clearly told her no, the EEOC would not have shown enough evidence to survive summary judgment.91

To be actionable, the conduct must go beyond the “merely offensive” so that it changes the terms and conditions of the victim’s job. Because a “sexual harassment case” is against the employer, not the harasser, and “only the employer can change the terms and conditions of employment, an isolated incident of harassment by a coworker will rarely (if ever) give rise to a reasonable fear that sexual harassment has become a permanent feature of the employment relationship.”92 We weigh both severity and pervasiveness to evaluate whether a reasonable victim would think that sexual harassment had become a permanent feature of the employment relationship. And because only an employer can change the terms and conditions of employment, that will rarely if ever be the case, if the employer takes appropriate corrective action upon finding out about the harassment.93 At least for coworker sexual harassment, the employer could not reasonably be expected to think an abusive environment had been created for an

91Cf. Weiss v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Chicago, 990 F.2d 333, 337 (7th Cir. 1993) (finding no hostile work environment where a superior asked employee for dates, called her a “dumb blond,” put his hand on her shoulder several times, placed “I love you” signs in her work area, and tried to kiss her in a bar).
92Brooks, 229 F.3d at 924.
93Id.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 17 of 20

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

13395

employee if the employer did not know of the conduct and its unwelcomeness. But here it did.

[5] Munoz’s first advances were unwelcome, but Lamas did not feel his work environment was abusive based on these initial contacts. In light of Lamas’s testimony that he did not feel abused until Munoz made her third invitation, had Munoz stopped when Lamas told her clearly and explicitly after each of the first two notes that he was not interested, the EEOC would not have a triable issue of fact on unwelcomeness. But Lamas testified that the third invitation was unwelcome and abusive, and the record, taken in the light most favorable to Lamas, shows that Lamas was perfectly clear that these advances were unwelcome. (We do not imply some fixed rule that a third invitation for a date is necessarily over the line, because rejections often leave future possibilities unclear.)

[6] Munoz’s continued advances created an environment that Lamas reasonably perceived as hostile and abusive. Lamas’ emotional testimony about his reaction to Munoz’s letters and gestures, his co-workers’ statements about Munoz’s interest in him, his complaints to his supervisors and Prospect managers, as well as his complaints to the EEOC and State of Nevada all evidenced pervasiveness amounting to an abusive work environment.94 As increased frequency and pervasiveness of the advances as well as his other coworkers’ messages from Munoz and ridicule crossed the line over into abusiveness, he continued to complain to his supervisors and demonstrated his sense of being abused.95

[7] Next we must consider whether a reasonable victim in the same circumstances would have perceived the working

94See M & O Agencies, 496 F.3d at 1055 (victim’s continued complaints to supervisors and testimony that verbal abuse made her uncomfortable and upset at work established subjective perception of abusive environment to state a prima facie case).
95See Nichols, 256 F.3d at 873-74.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 18 of 20

13396

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

environment created by Munoz’s conduct as abusive. Munoz’s advances were not severe, as these cases go. The only touching was a kiss on the cheek. She used words, gestures, and a photograph, not unwanted touching, to communicate her desires. The EEOC is correct, though, that the pervasiveness and the inadequate response by the employer established a jury question of whether her overtures led to an abusive environment. We have held that “[t]he required level of severity or seriousness varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct.”96 In Draper v. Coeur Rochester, Inc., we held that there was a genuine issue of material fact on hostile work environment where the conduct at issue consisted only of pervasive remarks over an extended period of time.97

[8] Munoz’s pursuit of Lamas was relentless. She would not leave him alone, despite his repeated clear rejections of her overtures. She recruited other co-workers to deliver messages to him; the campaign broadened to include the whole workplace. Other workers began mocking Lamas for his failure to respond to Munoz’s sexual advances. Lamas described over six months of constant (and often daily) sexual pressure and humiliation from Munoz and other co-workers. The constant ridicule and taunting from Lamas’ co-workers as a result of Munoz’s advances is similar to the abusive ridicule we found actionable in Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc.98

[9] The evidence in the record creates a genuine issue of material fact that Lamas’s work was impaired by Munoz’s sexual advances. He reported that he began crying at work, sought medical help for his psychological problem, and the quality of his work deteriorated on account of the pervasively abusive environment. He went from being the well-respected

96Id. at 872. 97Draper v. Coeur Rochester, Inc., 147 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir. 1998). 98Nichols, 256 F.3d at 870.

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 19 of 20

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

13397

employee, used to try to retain the Southwest Airlines contract, to being fired. He conceded that the quality of his work deteriorated because of his psychological difficulties on account of the Munoz campaign of harassment.

4. Prospect Airport’s response.

[10] An employer is liable for a employee’s sexual harassment of a coworker if it knew, or should have known, about the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action.99 “Harassment is to be remedied through actions targeted at the harasser, not at the victim[.]”100 The record establishes that a jury could reasonably find that Prospect knew about the harassment, and that its response was inadequate. Lamas complained to his employer, but Prospect’s responses were ineffectual, and known by Prospect to be ineffectual. His immediate supervisor, Ronda Thompson, failed even to tell Munoz to stop. He repeatedly brought his concerns to others in management, and a manager told Munoz to stop, but management did nothing about it when Munoz did not stop, and management knew she had not. Instead the assistant general manager told Lamas to sing to himself “I’m too sexy for my shirt.”

[11] Prospect’s actions were not enough to establish an affirmative defense for Prospect. “If the employer fail[s] to
take even the mildest form of disciplinary action the remedy is insufficient under Title VII.”101 Prospect did nothing about
Munoz, instead telling Lamas to console himself by saying
“I’m too sexy for my shirt.” Men as well as women are enti-
tled under Title VII to protection from a sexually abusive work environment.102 Lamas submitted evidence that Prospect
knowingly denied him protection.

99See, e.g., Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986); Intlekofer v. Turnage, 973 F.2d 773, 780 (9th Cir. 1992).
100Intlekofer, 973 F.2d at 780 n.9.
101Id. at 779 (citations and quotations omitted).
102See Oncale, 523 U.S. at 82 (sexual harassment of male employee by male co-workers violated Title VII); Nichols, 256 F.3d at 875 (harassment of male employee by co-workers for failure to conform to gender-based stereotypes created hostile work environment in violation of Title VII).

Case 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK Document 53 Filed 09/03/10 Page 20 of 20

13398

EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES

REVERSED.

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

11 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
12 Plaintiff,
13 v.
14 PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES, INC.,
15 Defendant.
16

Case No. 2:05-CV-01125-KJD-RJJ ORDER

17

Before the Court is Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”)

18 Motion for Injunctive Relief (#156), to which Defendant Prospect Airport Services (“Prospect”)

19 responded (#157) and Plaintiff replied (#161). Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motions to File

20 Documents Under Seal (#160) and to Amend the Motion to File Documents Under Seal (#163). Also

21 before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply to EEOC’s Reply Brief (#162)

22 which Plaintiff opposed (#164).

23 I. Background

24

In 2005, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for allegedly subjecting Rudolpho Lamas

25 (“Lamas”) to unwelcome sexual harassment by a co-worker during 2002 and 2003. Three days before

26 trial, on December 16, 2011, the parties entered an agreement during the Settlement Conference

1 (#159) to facilitate this Court’s determination regarding injunctive relief. The monetary claim was

2 settled for $75,000, leaving only the question of non-monetary sanctions before this Court. The

3 relevant terms of the settlement are as follows: 1) “Prospect does not contest…that the employee

4 Rudolpho Lamas was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment,” 2) “Prospect does not

5 contest…that [it] failed to respond to Mr. Lamas’ Complaint.”

6

In the time since this lawsuit was filed, it appears that Defendant has taken substantial efforts

7 to ensure compliance with the sexual harassment provisions of Title VII. It also appears that all

8 individuals involved, including the harassee, harasser, and the relevant supervisors had left Prospect

9 by mid-2006.

10 II. Analysis

11

A. Motion to File Documents Under Seal

12

Section 2000e-5(b) of Title VII prohibits Plaintiff from making public the charges they

13 receive. The Local Rules permit the Court to seal these documents. Local Rule 10-5. Therefore, in

14 order to enable Plaintiff to fully present its case while abiding by the requirements of Title VII, this

15 Court grants leave to file the following documents under seal: Plaintiff EEOC’s Reply Brief in

16 Support of its Motion For Injunctive Relief (#161), and Declaration of Trial Attorney Amrita Mallik

17 in Support of the EEOC’s Reply Brief In Support of its Motion For Injunctive Relief (attached to

18 #156).

19

B. Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal

20

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (#163) is granted as to EEOC’s Opposition to Defendant’s

21 Motion for Leave to File a Surreply (#164) for the same purposes served by permitting the previous

22 filing of documents under seal.

23

C. Motion for Leave to File a Surreply

24

Defendant’s proposed Surreply is unnecessary and the Motion is denied.

25

26

2

1

D. Motion for Injunctive Relief

2

1. Intentional Unlawful Employment Practice

3

“If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging

4 in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent

5 from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be

6 appropriate…” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g). However, the Ninth Circuit has “adopt[ed] a broad

7 interpretation of the term ‘intentionally’ to include all employment practices engaged in deliberately

8 rather than accidentally.” Schaeffer v. San Diego Yellow Cabs, Inc., 462 F.2d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir.

9 1972). In application, this definition requires only that a defendant “meant to do what he did, that is,

10 his [action] was not accidental.” Local 189, United Papermakers and Paperworkers v. United States,

11 416 F.2d 980, 996 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 919 (1970).

12

Defendant argues that the EEOC is not entitled to an injunction because there is no showing

13 that Defendant’s conduct was intentional. However, there can be no question that Defendant’s

14 failure to responsively investigate and remedy the sexual harassment “was not accidental.” To be

15 clear, the Court does not find that Defendant acted in bad faith. However, it is only accidental

16 action—not the absence of bad faith—which prevents the issuance of an injunction. See Albemarle

17 Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 422 (1975). Because Defendant’s actions qualify as “intentional”

18 under the statute, this Court will determine if injunctive relief is appropriate.

19

2. Injunctive Relief

20

If the conduct is found to be intentional, “District Courts have broad equitable powers to

21 fashion relief for violations of Title VII…” Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1233 (9th Cir. 1991).

22 However, “the moving party must satisfy the court that relief is needed.” United States v. W. T.

23 Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953). The courts may not issue an injunction unless persuaded that

24 there is “some cognizable danger of recurrent violation, something more than the mere possibility…”

25 Cummings v. Connell, 316 F.3d 886, 897 (9th Cir. 2003); accord United States v. Laerdal Mfg.

26 Corp., 73 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 1995). In making this determination, where a defendant takes

3

1 remedial steps after charges have been filed, such action “fails to provide sufficient assurances that

2 [the defendant] will not repeat the violation…” E.E.O.C. v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d

3 1539, 1544 (9th Cir. 1987).

4

Factors the court examines in determining the likelihood of future violations include:

5

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

6

defendant's professional and personal characteristics might enable or tempt him to

commit future violations; and the sincerity of any assurances against future violations

7

8 Laerdal, 73 F.3d at 855. It is important to note that “injunctive relief is designed to deter future

9 misdeeds, not to punish past misconduct.” Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549, 564 (9th

10 Cir. 1990).

11

There has been no trial in which to find facts and the terse language of the settlement

12 agreement between the parties provides the only settled factual basis for this Court’s determination.

13 However, the Court has been overseeing this case since 2005 and is “extremely familiar with its

14 history.” See Davis v. City & County of San Francisco, 890 F.2d 1438, 1451 (9th Cir. 1989)

15 (indicating deference where remedy was fashioned in part based on District Court’s familiarity with

16 case).

17

Injunctive relief cannot issue unless there is a cognizable risk of recurrent violations. After

18 being sued, Defendant took substantial remedial actions to prevent further violations of Title VII.

19 However, these actions are insufficient assurances that Defendant will not repeat the violation.

20 Goodyear, 813 F.2d at 1544. However, given the breadth of Defendant’s actions, as well as the

21 considerable time period that has elapsed since charges were filed, these remedial actions weigh in

22 Defendant’s favor. There is no clear indication of scienter, since the timing and nature of the

23 complaints made by Lamas has not been established. Plaintiff failed to obtain a stipulation of facts

24 showing scienter despite the opportunity to do so in the settlement agreement, and the burden rests

25 with Plaintiff to satisfy this Court that relief is needed.

26

To determine whether relief is appropriate based on the isolation or recurrence of the

4

1 violation, the relevant level of analysis is not between Lamas and his co-worker, both of whom have 2 long ago left the company, but rather the isolation or recurrence of sexual harassment violations 3 within the company. Plaintiff alleges certain evidence filed under seal1 relates to whether or not the

4 isolation or recurrence factor weighs in favor of injunctive relief. However, Plaintiff provides no

5 authority that withdrawn charges are relevant to this inquiry. Further, viewing Plaintiff’s evidence in

6 the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it is insufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of recurrence

7 beyond a “mere possibility.”

8

Defendant appears to recognize the wrongful nature of its conduct since it has settled with

9 Lamas for $75,000. Defendant does not appear to have characteristics distinct from those of any

10 other business which would enable or encourage it to engage in further violations. The Court has no

11 specific indication that Defendant’s desire to avoid any future violations is insincere.

12

However, the Court is convinced that injunctive relief is necessary in this case. The steps

13 undertaken by Defendant appear to be aimed at transitioning away from sexual harassment

14 violations. However, to ensure that this is the case and to assist Defendant in solidifying its

15 transition over time, the Court orders injunctive relief against Defendant Prospect as follows:

16

1. Defendant Prospect, its officers, agents, and managers are enjoined from violating Title

17

VII as it relates to sexual harassment for a period of five (5) years.

18

2. Defendant Prospect will develop, implement, and distribute to all employees an Anti-

19

Harassment Policy regarding sexual harassment in all of its facilities. The policy shall

20

include:

21

a. A clear explanation of the conduct prohibited by the policy

22

b. A clearly described Complaint Process for any employee who believes they have

23

been subjected to sexual harassment in Defendant’s workplace.

24

i. Defendant Prospect shall develop, implement, and publicize to all

25

26

1 The documents were filed under seal in order to comply with 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(b).

5

1

employees a Complaint Process which includes multiple accessible

2

avenues of complaint, including verbal complaints, and which keeps

3

complaints as confidential as reasonably possible. Defendant Prospect

4

shall further develop and implement a procedure for communicating with

5

the complainant regarding the status of the complaint, findings from the

6

investigation, and remedial action taken.

7

3. Defendant Prospect will develop and implement a prompt, thorough, effective, and

8

impartial Investigation Process. This will include a procedure detailing how to conduct,

9

document, and report the investigation. All supervisory employees who receive a

10

complaint of sexual harassment either verbally or in writing shall report the complaint to

11

Defendant’s Human Resources Department within 24 hours.

12

4. Defendant Prospect will develop and implement appropriate disciplinary policies holding

13

all company personnel accountable for their inappropriate action or inaction regarding

14

sexual harassment.

15

5. Defendant Prospect will conduct mandatory annual training for all supervisory employees

16

regarding their obligations under the Anti- Harassment Policy, the Complaint Process, the

17

Investigation Process, and Title VII as it relates to sexual harassment.

18

6. Defendant Prospect will ensure that all current and future non-supervisory employees are

19

aware of the Anti-Harassment Policy, the Complaint Process, and the Investigation

20

Process.

21

7. Defendant Prospect will develop and implement a process whereby employees at all

22

levels may submit questions regarding sexual harassment and receive timely answers

23

from Human Resources.

24

8. Defendant Prospect is required to submit EEOC Monitoring Reports once every six

25

months for a period of three (3) years.

26

6

1

The Court has determined that this relief is appropriate to prevent future violations. The first

2 six injunctions are harmonious with actions already begun by Defendant and serve to ensure

3 completion of Defendant’s preparations for compliance with Title VII.

4

The Court has determined that annual training of supervisory employees is sufficient to

5 ensure compliance without the substantial costs associated with the requested annual live training for

6 hundreds of employees. Defendant is free to utilize live training, but this Court finds no reason to

7 mandate any specific form of training. Injunction #7 is fashioned to appropriately address Plaintiff’s

8 request that all employees have a venue for questions regarding sexual harassment.

9

Under the circumstances presented here, three years of monitoring is sufficient to ensure that

10 the changes outlined in this Order are fully and stably implemented by Defendant. However, the

11 Court declines to mandate that Defendant contract with an EEOC Consultant to review and revise its

12 policies. Defendant appears to be a sophisticated enterprise capable of ensuring its own compliance

13 and this Court sees no reason to require third-party involvement in implementation of this Order or

14 preparation of the monitoring reports.

15

Finally, Plaintiff has proposed an injunction requiring the posting of Notice regarding this

16 Action, the above Injunctions, and Defendant’s commitment to abiding within Title VII. The

17 Injunction as ordered provides a sufficient avenue for communicating sexual harassment policies.

18 To the extent that the proposed relief is not duplicative, it would impermissibly serve a punitive

19 rather than a preventative function. Accordingly, the Court declines to require Notice as proposed by

20 the Plaintiff.

21

III. Conclusion

22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief

23 (#156) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part as set forth herein;

24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under

25 Seal (#160) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Motion to File Documents Under Seal (#163) are

26 GRANTED;

7

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply (#162)

2 is DENIED.

3

DATED this 25th day of July 2012.

4

5

6

_____________________________

Kent J. Dawson

7

United States District Judge

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

 
 12/1/2019

Court Grants EEOC Injunction Against Prospect Airport Services

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE 7-27-12
Court Grants EEOC Injunction Against Prospect Airport Services
EEOC Sued After Male Employee Was Harassed by a Woman
LAS VEGAS -- A federal judge has ordered Prospect Airport Services, Inc., a provider of wheelchair assistance services to airline passengers, to implement extensive measures to prevent sexual harassment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.
The order was necessary because, after agreeing to a monetary settlement of $75,000, Prospect refused to agree to any prospective relief to prevent future harassment. This refusal forced the EEOC to petition the district court for an injunction. The EEOC had charged in the underlying lawsuit that the company failed to address complaints of unrelenting sexual advances toward a male passenger services assistant by a female co-worker in Las Vegas. The EEOC originally filed suit against Prospect in 2005 in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (EEOC v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-GWF).
Stating that “the Court is convinced that injunctive relief is necessary in this case,” U.S. District Judge Kent J. Dawson granted the EEOC’s request and issued an order enjoining Prospect from further violating Title VII as it relates to sexual harassment for a period of five years. Adopting most of the EEOC's proposals, the court further ordered that Prospect must develop a policy and procedures for handling reports of sexual harassment; develop an effective investigation process for all complaints of sexual harassment; appropriately discipline management and human resources staff for failure to comply with such procedures; and provide annual sexual harassment training to all supervisory employees. This order impacts the over 4,000 workers employed by Prospect. The EEOC will monitor compliance with the judge’s order.
In 2002, the male employee began to receive sexually suggestive notes from a female co-worker while employed by Prospect at the McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas. The EEOC asserts that the male employee -- whose wife had just passed away the prior year -- rebuffed the advances and brought the notes to the attention of a general manager who made light of the advances and failed to stop the harassment. There was no effective company policy at the time to address the issue, according to the EEOC.
While the alleged victim repeatedly communicated that he was not interested in the female co-worker, the advances only intensified, including giving him a semi-nude photo of herself, making lewd gestures, and even recruiting other employees to approach him on her behalf. Over the course of a year, the harassment escalated to a near-daily basis, including offensive remarks by co-workers about his sexuality due to his rigorous rejection of the sexual advances. Despite his repeated complaints to management, the hostile work environment ended only when he resigned in 2003.
Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a prelitigation settlement through its conciliation process. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Prospect in 2007. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision in 2010, allowing a jury trial in the lower court to proceed with the opinion that such a trial might favor the EEOC.
“Today the court has spoken to affirm the importance for all employers to have effective policies and procedures in place to prevent discrimination in the workplace,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, which includes southern Nevada in its jurisdiction. “A strong policy, meaningful training and a swift response to complaints help to contain an existing hostile work environment or to prevent one from arising. The judge’s order will go a long way toward protecting Prospect’s employees from harassment.”
“Sixteen percent of all sexual harassment charges at the EEOC last year were filed by men,” said Adriana Lopez, acting local director for the EEOC’s Las Vegas Local Office. “The law protects both men and women from sexual harassment at work, and it is the employer’s obligation to actively prevent and correct such problems as they arise in the workplace.”
According to its website, Chicago-based Prospect Airport Services provides a broad range of services to airlines and has over 4,000 employees in 13 cities and 14 airports across the United States.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

https://www1.eeoc.gov//eeoc/newsroom/release/7-27-12.cfm?renderforprint=1

1/1

 
 Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 1 of 16
United States District Court District of Nevada (Las Vegas) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05−cv−01125−KJD−NJK

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Prospect Airport Date Filed: 09/13/2005

Services, Inc.

Date Terminated: 03/20/2014

Assigned to: Judge Kent J. Dawson

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Case in other court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 07−17221 Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Anna Park U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012− 213−894−1083 Email: anna.park@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amrita Mallik U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, 7th Floor Honolulu, HI 96850 (808) 541−3133 Fax: (808) 541−3390 Email: amrita.mallik@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth A Naccarato United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 388−5072 Email: Elizabeth.Naccarato@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory L. McClinton United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012− (213) 894−1000 Fax: 213−894−1118 Email: Gregory.McClinton@EEOC.Gov TERMINATED: 03/02/2011

Lorena Garcia EEOC/Los Angeles District Office 255 E. Temple Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−1108 Email: Lorena.Garcia@eeoc.gov (Inactive) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J Farrell

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 2 of 16
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 255 E. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−3668 Fax: 213−894−1301 Email: michael.farrell@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 09/13/2012
Wilfredo Tungol U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Honolulu Local Office 300 Ala Moana Blvd. #7−127 P.O. Box 50082 Honolulu, Ha 96850 (808)541−3121 Fax: (808)541−3390 Email: wilfredo.tungol@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/02/2011

V. Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.

represented by James D. Hibbard Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC 3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy Suite 550 Las Vegas, NV 89169 (702) 669−3600 Fax: (702) 650−2995 Email: jim.hibbard@bullivant.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph P Garin Lipson Neilson P.C. 9900 Covington Cross Drive Suite 120 Las Vegas, NV 89144 702−382−1500 Fax: 702−382−1512 Email: NVECF@lipsonneilson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Blair Pedersen & Houpt, P.C. 161 N. Clark Street Ste 3100 Chicago, IL 60601 312−261−2233 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas W Murphy Pedersen & Houpt, P.C. 161 N. Clark St. Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 641−6888 Fax: (312) 641−6895 Email: tmurphy@pedersenhoupt.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 3 of 16
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angela Nakamura Ochoa Lipson Neilson Cole Seltzer & Garin, P.C. 9900 Covington Cross Dr., Suite 120 Las Vegas, NV 89144 702−382−1500 Fax: 702−382−1512 Email: aochoa@lipsonneilson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judah Zakalik Peters and Associates, LLP 6173 S Rainbow Bld Las Vegas, NV 89118 702−818−3888 Fax: 702−573−4940 Email: jz@pandalawfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin K. LaPointe Burke Warren Mackay & Serritella 22nd Floor − IBM Plaza 330 North Wabash Avenue Chicago, Il 60611−3607 TERMINATED: 04/05/2007
Shannon D Nordstrom Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C. 9900 Covington Cross Drive Suite 120 Las Vegas, NV 89144 (702) 382−1500 Fax: (702) 382−1512 Email: NVECF@lipsonneilson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy J Geswein Kravitz, Schnitzer, Sloane & Johnson, Chtd. 8985 So. Eastern Avenue, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89123 702−362−6666 Fax: 702−362−2203 Email: tgeswein@kssattorneys.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/13/2005 09/13/2005 10/17/2005
11/28/2005
11/28/2005

# Docket Text
SUMMONS ISSUED Obo P (Entered: 09/16/2005)
1 COMPLAINT Obo P civil rights complaint w/ jury demand. (Entered: 09/16/2005)
2 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Waiver of summons by D. (Entered: 10/20/2005)
3 VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice submitted by attorney Martin K. LaPointe, by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (Fee Paid) (Attachments: # 1 Designation of Resident Counsel)(AAB) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
4 ANSWER to [] Complaint by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 12/8/2005. Discovery Plan due by 1/12/2006.(MAJ, ) (Entered: 12/11/2005)

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 4 of 16

11/28/2005 11/30/2005 12/02/2005 12/29/2005 12/29/2005 12/29/2005 12/29/2005 01/10/2006 01/24/2006 01/24/2006 02/14/2006 02/15/2006
03/22/2006 03/29/2006
04/11/2006
04/25/2006 04/26/2006 05/09/2006

5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC re 3 VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice submitted by attorney Martin K. LaPointe,. (MAJ, ) (Entered: 12/11/2005)
6 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (AAB) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
7 VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice submitted by attorney Thomas W. Murphy, by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (Fee Paid) (AAB) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
8 ORDER granting 7 Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Thomas W. Murphy for Prospect Airport Services, INC. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 12/28/05. (AAB) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
9 DESIGNATION of Local Counsel by Thomas W. Murphy on behalf of Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (AAB) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
10 ORDER granting 3 Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Martin K. LaPointe for Prospect Airport Services, INC. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 12/29/05. (AAB) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
11 DESIGNATION of Local Counsel by Martin K. LaPointe on behalf of Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (AAB) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
12 PROPOSED Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
13 ORDER Denying Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (#12) and entering Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Robert J. Johnston on 01/2/2006J. (MXS, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery due by 5/30/2006. Joint Status Report due by 3/28/2006. Motions due by 6/30/2006. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 7/31/2006. (MXS, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
14 CASE REFERRED to Early Neutral Evaluation Program. Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen will be the evaluating judge in this case. (MXS) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
15 NOTICE: Pursuant to Special Order No. 102 this case has been assigned to the Early Neutral Evaluation Program. Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen will be the evaluating judge in this case. Early Neutral Evaluation set for 4/11/2006 01:30 PM in Magistrate Judge Leen's Chambers, Room 3071, Lloyd D. George Courthouse, before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. (MMM, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney wilfredo tungol on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (tungol, wilfredo) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
17 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Robert J. Johnston, U.S. Magistrate Judge on 3/29/2006. By Judicial Secretary: MXS. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the oral request for an extension of time to file the Interim Status Report is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall have to and including April 12, 2006, to file the Interim Status Report in this case. (no image attached) (MXS) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
18 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Early Neutral Evaluation Conference held on 4/11/2006 before Judge Peggy A. Leen. Case to return to normal litigation track. Status Conference set for 4/24/2006 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. (AXM, ) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
19 STATUS REPORT by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (tungol, wilfredo) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
20 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Early Neutral Evaluation Conference held on 4/26/2006 before Judge Peggy A. Leen.Case to return to normal litigation track. (AXM, ) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
21 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY AND OTHER DEADLINES by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (McClinton, Gregory) (Entered: 05/09/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 5 of 16

06/02/2006 06/16/2006 07/13/2006 07/17/2006
07/18/2006 07/21/2006
10/23/2006 10/25/2006
10/26/2006 12/15/2006
01/16/2007 01/16/2007 01/17/2007 01/19/2007
01/19/2007
01/19/2007

22 ORDER OF RECUSAL. This action is referred to Chief Judge Philip M. Pro for reassignment. Signed by Judge Robert J. Johnston on 6/2/2006. (MXS ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
23 AFFIDAVIT of Service (Subpoena for Deposition − Angela Tullos) by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (Zakalik, Judah) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
24 NOTICE of Change of Address by Judah Zakalik. (zip code only) (Zakalik, Judah) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
25 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Philip M. Pro, U.S. District Judge on 7/17/2006. By Deputy Clerk: Michael Zadina. IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned to Judge George W Foley, Jr for all further proceedings. Judge Robert J. Johnston no longer assigned to case. All further documents must bear the correct case number 2:05−cv−01125−KJD−GWF. (no image attached) (MJZ) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
26 STIPULATION to Extend Discovery Deadline by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (tungol, wilfredo) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
27 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 26 Stipulation., SCHEDULING ORDER. Discovery due by 9/30/2006. Motions due by 10/30/2006. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 11/30/2006. Signed by Judge George W Foley Jr. on 7/20/06. (AXM) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
28 STIPULATION for Extension of Dispositive Motion and Pretrial Order Submission Deadlines (Third Request) by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (Zakalik, Judah) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
30 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 28 Stipulation for extension of dispositive motion and pretrial order submission deadlines. Motions due by 12/15/2006. Responses to dispositive motion due by 1/15/2007. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/15/2007. Signed by Judge George W Foley Jr. on 10/25/06. (MAJ) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
29 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 28 Stipulation for Extension of Dispositive Motion and Pretrial Order Submission Deadlines. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 10/24/06. (AXM) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
31 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. Responses due by 1/2/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Part 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A − Part 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B − Part 1# 4 Exhibit Exhibit B − Part 2# 5 Exhibit Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit Exhibit E# 8 Exhibit Exhibit F)(Zakalik, Judah) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
32 RESPONSE to 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 1/30/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Statement of Material Facts)(Tungol, Wilfredo) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
33 ERROR: Wrong event selected. (MJZ) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
34 ERROR: Wrong event selected. (MJZ) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
NOTICE of Docket Correction to 33 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment: ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Attorney Wilfredo Tungol advised to re−file PDFs using "Declaration" event under the "Other Documents" category and link to 32 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. (no image attached)(MJZ) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
NOTICE of Docket Correction to 34 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment: ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Attorney Wilfredo Tungol advised to re−file PDF using "Certificate of Service" event under the "Service of Process" category. (no image attached)(MJZ) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
35 DECLARATION of Wilfredo Tungol re 32 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment; Declaration of Wilfredo Tungol in Support of EEOC's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Tungol, Wilfredo) (Entered: 01/19/2007)

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 6 of 16

01/19/2007 01/29/2007 02/05/2007 02/14/2007 03/09/2007 03/14/2007 04/05/2007 04/06/2007 05/21/2007
05/23/2007
09/27/2007 09/27/2007 11/20/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 12/05/2007
12/12/2007 12/12/2007 09/03/2010

36 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Proof Of Service Via Electronic Mail (Tungol, Wilfredo) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
37 REPLY to Response to 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (Geswein, Timothy) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
38 STIPULATION To Continue Pretrial Order Submission Date by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (McClinton, Gregory) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
39 ORDER ON STIPULATION GRANTING 38 Stipulation for time to file Pretrial Order. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/9/2007. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 2/7/07. (AXM) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
40 STIPULATION to Continue Pretrial Order Submission Date by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Tungol, Wilfredo) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
41 ORDER ON STIPULATION GRANTING 40 Stipulation to extend deadline for 30 days after the ruling of the Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 3/12/07. (AXM) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
42 NOTICE of Change of Address by Timothy J Geswein. Notice of Change of Address and Firm Name and Counsel (Geswein, Timothy) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
NOTE: Attorney Thomas Murphy advised to register with CM/ECF, for the District of Nevada, and update his/her account information re 42 Notice of Change of Address and Firm Name. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
43 VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice and DESIGNATION of Local Counsel (James D. Hibbard) submitted by attorney Lauren Blair, (Filing fee $ 175 receipt number 569953) by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (Geswein, Timothy) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
44 ORDER Granting 43 Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Lauren Blair for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and approving Designation of Local Counsel. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 5/23/07. (AXM) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
45 ORDER Granting 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 9/27/07. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − AXM) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
46 JUDGMENT in favor of Prospect Airport Services, INC against Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Lance S. Wilson on 9/27/07. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − AXM) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
47 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Park, Anna) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
48 TRANSMITTAL of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 47 Notice of Appeal. (JAG) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
49 CERTIFICATE OF RECORD on Appeal Transmitted to USCA re 47 Notice of Appeal. (JAG) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
50 EXHIBIT(s) Exhibits 1 through 15 to 35 Declaration, ; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1A# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 2 & 3# 3 Exhibit Exhibits 4 through 6# 4 Exhibit Exhibits 7 through 15)(McClinton, Gregory) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
51 TRANSMITTAL RETURN of Notice of Appeal from USCA re 47 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 07−17221. (JAG) (Entered: 12/13/2007)
52 TRANSMITTAL RETURN re 49 Certificate of Record to C/A. (AXM) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
53 MEMORANDUM/OPINION of USCA, Ninth Circuit, as to 47 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. REVERSED. (JAG) (Entered: 09/03/2010)

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 7 of 16

11/12/2010
02/09/2011 02/10/2011
02/24/2011 03/02/2011 03/09/2011 03/09/2011 03/09/2011
03/10/2011 04/21/2011 04/22/2011 04/22/2011
04/25/2011
04/26/2011

54 ORDER of USCA, Ninth Circuit, stating that the motion to stay the mandate pending filing of a petition for writ of certiorari is granted as to 47 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The mandate shall be satyed for 90 days and if a petition for writ of certiorari is filed within that period, the mandate shall be stayed for such further time until the Supreme Court adts on the petition. If the petition is denied, the mandate shall be isued forthwith. (JAG) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
55 MANDATE of USCA, Ninth Circuit, as to 47 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. REVERSED. (JAG) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
57 ORDER on Mandate as to 55 USCA Mandate REVERSING the judgment of the US District Court re 47 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Pretrial Order is due on or before 3/11/2011. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 2/10/11. (EDS) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
58 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Elizabeth A Naccarato on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ALSO APPEARING, ATTORNEYS AMRITA MALLIK AND MICHAEL J. FARRELL (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service Re: Notice of Appearance)(Naccarato, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
59 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Lorena Garcia on behalf of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Garcia, Lorena) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
60 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Joseph P Garin on behalf of Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
61 Fifth MOTION to Extend Time regarding discovery/nondispositive matter /deadline to file Joint Pretrial Order by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. Motion ripe 3/9/2011. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
62 NON−OPPOSITION to 61 Fifth MOTION to Extend Time regarding discovery/nondispositive matter /deadline to file Joint Pretrial Order ; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Plaintiff EEOC's Statement of Non−Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Extend the Deadline to File The Joint Pretrial Order [Doc #61] (Naccarato, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
63 ORDER Granting 61 Motion to Extend Time to File Joint Pretrial Order. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 4/25/2011. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 3/10/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − EDS) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
64 MOTION to Extend Time regarding discovery/nondispositive matter (Sixth Request) Motion to Extend the Deadline to File the Joint Pretrial Order by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. Motion ripe 4/21/2011. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
65 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Kent J. Dawson, on 4/22/2011. By Deputy Clerk: Peggie Vannozzi. RE: 64 Motion to Extend the Deadline to File the Joint Pretrial Order. Responses due by 4/29/2011.(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PAV) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
66 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr, on 4/22/2011. Plaintiff shall have until Wednesday, April 27, 2011 to file a response, if any, to 64 Defendant's Motion to Extend the Deadline to File the Joint Pretrial Order. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − REO). (Entered: 04/22/2011)
67 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr, on 4/25/2011. Judge Foley's April 22, 2011 Order 66 regarding the Motion to Extend Time 64 is vacated. The parties should adhere to Judge Dawson's April 22, 2011 Order 65 on the matter. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − REO) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
68 NON−OPPOSITION to 64 MOTION to Extend Time regarding discovery/nondispositive matter (First Request) Motion to Extend the Deadline to File the Joint Pretrial Order ; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Naccarato, Elizabeth) . (Entered: 04/26/2011)

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 8 of 16

05/04/2011 05/23/2011 05/24/2011
05/24/2011 05/25/2011 06/03/2011 06/07/2011 08/15/2011
10/04/2011 10/05/2011

69 ORDER Granting 64 Motion to Extend Time to File Joint Pretrial Order. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 5/23/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 5/4/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − EDS) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
70 PROPOSED Pretrial Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix to Joint [Proposed] Pre−trial Order)(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
71 PRETRIAL ORDER: Jury Trial set for 12/5/2011 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6D before Judge Kent J. Dawson. Calendar Call set for 11/29/2011 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6D before Judge Kent J. Dawson. Exhibit List due by 11/30/2011. Trial Briefs due by 11/30/2011. Proposed Jury Instructions due by 11/30/2011. Proposed Voir Dire due by 11/30/2011. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 5/23/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PAV) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
72 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge George W. Foley, Jr. to set a settlement conference. (Matter is stacked on the 12/5/2011 trial calendar.) Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 5/24/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PAV) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
73 ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference: Settlement Conference set for 10/12/2011 09:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 5/25/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − EDS) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
74 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (First Request) re 73 Order Scheduling Settlement Conference, ; by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
75 ORDER ON STIPULATION Granting 74 Stipulation for Extension of the Settlement Conference Date. Settlement Conference reset for 10/24/2011 09:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 6/7/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − EDS) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
76 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Robert C. Jones, on 8/15/2011. By Deputy Clerk: Aaron Blazevich. IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr no longer assigned to case. All further documents must bear the correct case number 2:05−cv−01125−KJD−CWH. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − ASB) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
77 NOTICE by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC Request for an Order Allowing for the Carrier to Appear Telephonically for the Settlement Conference (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
78 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 10/5/2011 by Deputy Clerk: Donna Smith. Pursuant to the reassignment of this case to Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, the Settlement Conference set October 24, 2011, before Magistrate Judge George W. Foley is vacated.

The Settlement Conference is reschuled to Friday, November 4, 2011, at 9:00 AM in Chambers, Room 3014, before Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman.

10/05/2011

Settlement Briefs remain due on October 17, 2011. The parties shall deliver the Briefs to Chambers, Room 3014, no later than October 17, 2011. All other condtions and directions set forth in the Order Scheduling a Settlement Conference 73 remain in full effect. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − DES) (Entered: 10/05/2011)
79 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, on 10/5/2011. RE: 77 Notice (Other) Defendant's request for an order allowing its carrier to appear telephonically at the settlement conference scheduled in this matter is denied. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − MW) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 9 of 16

10/07/2011 10/11/2011
10/21/2011 11/04/2011 11/04/2011 11/04/2011 11/04/2011 11/04/2011 11/07/2011 11/07/2011 11/07/2011 11/07/2011
11/07/2011
11/07/2011
11/07/2011

80 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Second Request) JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DATE TO NOVEMBER 21, 2011; PROPOSED ORDER by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Naccarato, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
81 ORDER ON STIPULATION Granting 80 Stipulation Requesting Extension of the Settlement Conference Date to 11/21/11. Settlement Conference reset for 11/21/2011 09:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 10/11/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − EDS) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
82 SUPPLEMENT to 71 Pretrial Order, ; Plaintiff EEOC's Supplemental Pretrial Disclosures by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
83 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Motion in Limine to Bifurcate The Trial into Two Phases: Liability and Punitive Damages, Alternatively, to Exclude Prospect's Financial Worth and Conduct Post−Lamas by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. Responses due by 11/21/2011. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
84 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Witnesses not Disclosed During Discovery by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. Responses due by 11/21/2011. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
85 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence that Rudolpho Lamas Found any Conduct Before the Third Note Harassing by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. Responses due by 11/21/2011. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
86 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Monetary Damages for the EEOC's Failure to Comply with FRCP 26 by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. Responses due by 11/21/2011. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
87 MOTION to Compel Production of Therapist's Notes and Motion in Limine to Include Testimony Regarding Therapists Meetings by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. Responses due by 11/21/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3)(Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
88 OBJECTION to Defendant's Proposed Trial Exhibits filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
89 SUPPLEMENT to EEOC's Designation of Deposition Testimony by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
90 SUPPLEMENT to 71 Pretrial Order, ; by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
91 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHARGING PARTY RUDOLPHO LAMAS WORK PERFORMANCE AT PROSPECT by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 11/24/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
92 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHARGING PARTY RUDOLPHO LAMAS PRIOR AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WORK PERFORMANCE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 11/24/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Naccarato, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
93 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHARGING PARTY RUDOLPHO LAMAS PAST SEXUAL BEHAVIOR OR ALLEGED SEXUAL PREDISPOSITION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 11/24/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
94 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHARGING PARTY RUDOLPHO LAMAS MENTAL HEALTH CARE THERAPY AND THERAPY RECORDS OUTSIDE OF INFORMATION REGARDING THE

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 10 of 16

11/07/2011 11/10/2011
11/14/2011 11/15/2011
11/15/2011 11/16/2011
11/18/2011 11/18/2011
11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011

HARASSMENT AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 11/24/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Naccarato, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
95 MOTION in Limine REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 11/24/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration DECLARATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY AMRITA MALLIK, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Certificate of Service)(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
96 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Kent J. Dawson, on 11/10/2011. By Deputy Clerk: Peggie Vannozzi. RE: 83 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Motion in Limine to Bifurcate The Trial into Two Phases: Liability and Punitive Damages, Alternatively, to Exclude Prospect's Financial Worth and Conduct Post−Lamas, ( Responses due by 11/16/2011.) (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PAV) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
97 SUPPLEMENT to 90 Supplement, 71 Pretrial Order, ; Plaintiff EEOC's Objections to Defendant's Deposition Testimony Designations by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
98 ORDER REGARDING TRIAL. Jury Trial set for 12/5/2011 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6D before Judge Kent J. Dawson. Calendar Call set for 11/29/2011 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6D before Judge Kent J. Dawson. Exhibit List due by 11/30/2011. Proposed Voir Dire due by 11/30/2011. Proposed Jury Instructions due by 11/30/2011. Trial Briefs due by 11/30/2011. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 11/15/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PAV) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
99 SUPPLEMENT to 71 Pretrial Order, ; (Second) by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
100 RESPONSE to 83 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Motion in Limine to Bifurcate The Trial into Two Phases: Liability and Punitive Damages, Alternatively, to Exclude Prospect's Financial Worth and Conduct Post−Lamas, filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC's Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine to Bifurcate Trial Replies due by 11/26/2011. (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
101 OBJECTION to 89 Supplement, 51 Transmittal Return of Notice of Appeal, 82 Supplement ; Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.'s Objections to Plaintiff's Deposition Testimony Designations filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
102 RESPONSE to 87 MOTION to Compel Production of Therapist's Notes and Motion in Limine to Include Testimony Regarding Therapists Meetings, filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOCS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THERAPISTS NOTES AND TESTIMONY REGARDING THERAPISTS MEETINGS AND COUNTER−MOTION FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES AND ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER FRCP 37(a)(5)(B). Replies due by 11/28/2011. (Naccarato, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
103 RESPONSE to 84 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Witnesses not Disclosed During Discovery, filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Exclude Witnesses (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Trial Attorney Amrita Mallik)(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
104 RESPONSE to 86 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Monetary Damages for the EEOC's Failure to Comply with FRCP 26, filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence of Damages (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
105 RESPONSE to 85 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence that Rudolpho Lamas Found any Conduct Before the Third Note Harassing, filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence of Harassment (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/18/2011)

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 11 of 16

11/21/2011
11/21/2011
11/21/2011 11/22/2011
11/23/2011
11/28/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011
11/28/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011

106 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Settlement Conference held on 11/21/2011 before Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman. Crtrm Administrator: M. Woolf; Pla Counsel: Amrita Mallik, Elizabeth Naccarato; Def Counsel: Joe Garin, Angelan Nakamura Ochoa, Rory Vohwinkel, Tom Murphy; Courtroom: 3C; This matter came before the Court for a settlement conference. No Settlement was reached. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − MW) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
107 RESPONSE to 93 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHARGING PARTY RUDOLPHO LAMAS PAST SEXUAL BEHAVIOR OR ALLEGED SEXUAL PREDISPOSITION ; filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−3)(Garin, Joseph) Event type corrected on 11/23/2011. (MJZ) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
109 Counter MOTION Pursuant to F.R.E. 412; filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc. Responses due by 12/8/2011. (MJZ) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
108 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, on 11/22/2011. With good cause appearing, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman recuses himself/herself in this action. IT IS ORDERED that this action is referred to the Clerk for random reassignment of this case for all further proceedings. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − MW) (Entered: 11/22/2011)
NOTICE of Docket Correction to 107 Reply to Response to Motion. ERROR: Wrong event selected by attorney Joseph P. Garin and document not entered as two separate entries in accordance with Special Order 109. CORRECTION: Entry corrected by Court to 107 Response to Motion and refiled by Court as 109 Counter Motion Pursuant to F.R.E. 412. (no image attached)(MJZ) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
110 REPLY to Response to 84 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Witnesses not Disclosed During Discovery ; filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
111 REPLY to Response to 85 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence that Rudolpho Lamas Found any Conduct Before the Third Note Harassing ; filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
112 REPLY to Response to 86 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Monetary Damages for the EEOC's Failure to Comply with FRCP 26 ; filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
113 REPLY to Response to 87 MOTION to Compel Production of Therapist's Notes and Motion in Limine to Include Testimony Regarding Therapists Meetings ; filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
114 RESPONSE to 95 MOTION in Limine REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. Replies due by 12/8/2011. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
115 RESPONSE to 94 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHARGING PARTY RUDOLPHO LAMAS MENTAL HEALTH CARE THERAPY AND THERAPY RECORDS OUTSIDE OF INFORMATION REGARDING THE HARASSMENT AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE, filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. Replies due by 12/8/2011. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
116 RESPONSE to 91 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHARGING PARTY RUDOLPHO LAMAS WORK PERFORMANCE AT PROSPECT, filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. Replies due by 12/8/2011. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
117 OBJECTION to 109 MOTION in Limine ; EEOCS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS COUNTER MOTION IN LIMINE AS UNTIMELY FILED filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
118 OBJECTION to 101 Objection to Document, ; EEOCS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO THE EEOCS DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS AS UNTIMELY FILED filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 12 of 16

11/28/2011 11/28/2011 11/29/2011

(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
119 REPLY to Response to 83 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Motion in Limine to Bifurcate The Trial into Two Phases: Liability and Punitive Damages, Alternatively, to Exclude Prospect's Financial Worth and Conduct Post−Lamas ; filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
120 RESPONSE to 92 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHARGING PARTY RUDOLPHO LAMAS PRIOR AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WORK PERFORMANCE, filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. Replies due by 12/8/2011. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
121 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Calendar Call held on 11/29/2011 before Judge Kent J. Dawson. Crtrm Administrator: Peggie Vannozzi; Pla Counsel: Amrita Mallik and Elizabeth Naccarato; Def Counsel: Joseph Garin; Court Reporter/FTR #: Felicia Zabin; Time of Hearing: 9:18 AM − 9:21 AM; Courtroom: 6D; The Court advises counsel that this trial will need to trail to 12/12/2011. Counsel do not object. The Court will issue rulings on the motions in limine. Ms. Naccarato advises the Court that Plaintiff's replies to some of the motions are due on 12/8/2012. The Court asks that the replies be filed by 11/30/2011.

11/29/2011 11/29/2011 11/30/2011 11/30/2011 11/30/2011 11/30/2011 11/30/2011

Jury Trial is set for 12/12/2011 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6D before Judge Kent J. Dawson. Trial briefs, Exhibit Lists, Proposed Voir Dire and Proposed Jury Instructions are due by 12/7/2011. Proposed Voir Dire due by 12/7/2011. Replies due by 11/30/2011.(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PAV) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
122 RESPONSE to 117 Objection to Document ; Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.'s Opposition to EEOC's Objection to Defendant's Counter Motion in Limine filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
123 RESPONSE to 118 Objection to Document ; Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.'s Opposition to EEOC's Objection to Defendant's Objections to the EEOC's Deposition Designation filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
124 MOTION for Hearing re Defendant's Emergency Motion to Allow Short Continuance of Trial Due to Scheduling Conflicts (First Request) by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. Motion ripe 11/30/2011. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
125 REPLY to Response to 91 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHARGING PARTY RUDOLPHO LAMAS WORK PERFORMANCE AT PROSPECT ; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
126 REPLY to Response to 92 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHARGING PARTY RUDOLPHO LAMAS PRIOR AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WORK PERFORMANCE ; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
127 REPLY to Response to 95 MOTION in Limine REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
128 REPLY to Response to 109 MOTION in Limine, 93 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHARGING PARTY RUDOLPHO LAMAS PAST SEXUAL BEHAVIOR OR ALLEGED SEXUAL PREDISPOSITION ; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOCS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO EEOCS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHARGING PARTY RODHOLPHO LAMAS PAST SEXUAL BEHAVIOR OR ALLEGED SEXUAL PREDISPOSITION [Doc. #107] and OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS COUNTERMOTION PURSUANT TO FRE 412 [Doc. #109] (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/30/2011)

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 13 of 16

11/30/2011
12/01/2011 12/01/2011 12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/14/2011

129 RESPONSE to 124 MOTION for Hearing re Defendant's Emergency Motion to Allow Short Continuance of Trial Due to Scheduling Conflicts (First Request), filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. PLAINTIFF EEOCS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS EMERGENCY MOTION TO ALLOW SHORT CONTIUANCE OF TRIAL DUE TO SCHEDULING CONFLICTS [DOC. #124]; DECLARATION OF AMRITA MALLIK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION; and EXHIBITS Replies due by 12/10/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Trial Attorney Amrita Mallik, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Naccarato, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
130 REPLY to Response to 124 MOTION for Hearing re Defendant's Emergency Motion to Allow Short Continuance of Trial Due to Scheduling Conflicts (First Request) ; filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
131 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Kent J. Dawson, on 12/1/2011. By Deputy Clerk: Peggie Vannozzi. RE: 124 MOTION for Hearing re Defendant's Emergency Motion to Allow Short Continuance of Trial Due to Scheduling Conflicts (First Request). Motion Hearing set for 12/6/2011 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6D before Judge Kent J. Dawson. Counsel may participate by telephone by calling the Court's meet−me line (from a land line only), 702−868−4915, conference code 123456. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PAV) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
132 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Motion Hearing held on 12/6/2011 before Judge Kent J. Dawson. Crtrm Administrator: Peggie Vannozzi; Pla Counsel: Amrita Mallik and Elizabeth Naccarato; Def Counsel: Joseph Garin; Court Reporter/FTR #: Felicia Zabin; Time of Hearing: 9:18 AM − 9:24 AM; Courtroom: 6D; The Court asks counsel whether this case could go the week of 12/19/2011. Counsel do not object to the one week continuance. IT IS ORDERED that 124 Defendant's Emergency Motion to Allow Short Continuance of Trial Due to Scheduling Conflicts is granted. Jury Trial is reset for 12/19/2011 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6D before Judge Kent J. Dawson. Exhibit Lists, Proposed Jury Instructions, Proposed Voir Dire and Trial Briefs are due by 12/14/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PAV) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
133 ORDER Granting 83 Motion to Bifurcate Trial; Granting in part and Denying in part 84 Motion in Limine to Exclude Witnesses Not Disclosed During Discovery; Denying 85 Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence that Rudolpho Lamas Found any Conduct Before the Third Note Harassing; Granting in part and Denying in part 86 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Monetary Damages; Granting 87 Motion to Compel; Denying 91 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas' Work Performance at Prospect; Denying 92 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas' Propr and/or Subsequent Work Performace; Denying 93 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence andArguments Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas Past Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition; Denying 94 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Charging Party Rudolpho Lamas Mental Health Care Therapy and Therapy Records Outside of the Information Regarding the Harassment at Issue in this Case.; Granting in part and Denying in part 95 Motion in Limine Request for Judicial Notice; and Granting 109 Defendant's Countermotion. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 12/6/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − EDS) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
134 PROPOSED Jury Instructions by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc..(Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
135 PROPOSED Jury Instructions by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc..(Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
136 PROPOSED Verdict Form by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc. (Phase I).(Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
137 PROPOSED Verdict Form by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc. (Phase II of Trial on Punitive Damages).(Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 12/14/2011)

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 14 of 16

12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/14/2011
12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/15/2011
12/15/2011 12/16/2011 12/16/2011 12/16/2011 12/16/2011 12/16/2011

138 PROPOSED Verdict Form by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Phase I). (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service Re Proposed Verdict Form, Phase I)(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
139 PROPOSED Verdict Form by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Phase II). (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service (Phase II))(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
140 PROPOSED Voir Dire by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service Re Proposed Voir Dire)(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
141 EXHIBIT LIST (JOINT EXHIBIT LIST) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A − Joint Exhibit List, # 2 Certificate of Service Re Joint Exhibit List)(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
142 PROPOSED Jury Instructions by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC's Separate Proposed Jury Instructions. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service Re Proposed Separate Jury Instructions)(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
143 PROPOSED Voir Dire by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc. Prospect Airport Services, Inc's Proposed Jury Voire Dire.(Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
144 TRIAL BRIEF PLAINTIFF EEOCS TRIAL BRIEF; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Naccarato, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
145 EXHIBIT LIST by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc..(Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
146 NOTICE by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc. re 145 Exhibit List. Reservation of Right to Supplement Trial Exhibit 548 (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
147 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
148 TRIAL BRIEF by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc..(Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
149 ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference: Settlement Conference set for 12/16/2011 at 11:00 AM in ADR Suite before Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston on 12/15/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − ECS) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
150 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically. by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. Motion ripe 12/15/2011. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
151 ORDER Denying 150 Motion to Allow Telephonic Appearance. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston on 12/16/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − EDS) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
152 ORDER ON STIPULATION Granting 147 Stipulation to Exclude Evidence and Argument. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 12/15/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − EDS) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
153 SUBPOENA Returned Executed as to Eva Brenes−Minnig (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
154 SUBPOENA Returned Executed as to Roberto Gonzalez (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
155 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Hearing re settlement conference held on 12/16/2011 before Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston. Crtrm Administrator: J. Ries; Pla Counsel: Elizabeth A. Naccarato and Amrita Mallik; Def Counsel: Joseph P. Garin; Court Reporter/FTR #: 7:22 − 7:31; Courtroom: 3D; The parties advise the court they have reached a settlement. The settlement is placed on the record. Payment by the defendant is to be completed by 1/6/12. Plaintiffs shall have until 1/10/12 to file a brief regarding injunctive/non−monetary relief. Defendant shall have until 1/31/12 to

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 15 of 16

01/10/2012 01/31/2012 01/31/2012 02/03/2012
02/10/2012 02/17/2012 02/29/2012 07/25/2012
09/13/2012 11/23/2012 01/07/2013
10/30/2013 11/08/2013

file a response. Reply brief, if any, shall be due 2/10/12. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − JAR) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
156 MOTION Injunctive Relief by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 1/27/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Trial Attorney Amrita Mallik in Support of EEOC's Motion for Injunctive Relief, # 2 Exhibit 1 through 10, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 01/10/2012)
157 RESPONSE to 156 MOTION Injunctive Relief, filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. Replies due by 2/10/2012. (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)(Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
158 OBJECTION to EEOC's Evidence filed by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
159 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings, 155 Settlement Conference held on 12/16/2011, before Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Exceptional Reporting Services, Inc., 361−949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber using the court's "Transcript Order" form available on our website www.nvd.uscourts.gov before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 2/24/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/5/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/3/2012. (ABB) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
160 MOTION to Seal EEOCS MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion ripe 2/10/2012. (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
162 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to EEOC's Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Injunctive Relief by Defendant Prospect Airport Services, Inc.. Motion ripe 2/17/2012. (Garin, Joseph) (Entered: 02/17/2012)
163 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 160 MOTION to Seal EEOCS MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL. EEOCS FIRST AMENDED MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 3/17/2012. (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
165 ORDER that Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief 156 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal 160 and Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Motion to File Documents Under Seal 163 are GRANTED. Defendants Motion for Leave to File a Surreply 162 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 7/25/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − ECS) (Entered: 07/25/2012)
166 NOTICE of Separation of Government Attorney Michael J. Farrell filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Park, Anna) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
167 NOTICE of Change of Address by Amrita Mallik. (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 11/23/2012)
168 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Robert C. Jones, on 1/7/2013. IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston no longer assigned to case. All further documents must bear the correct case number 2:05−CV−1125 KJD−NJK. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − ECS) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
169 NOTICE TO COUNSEL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 41−1. If no action is taken in this case within thirty (30) days, the Clerk's office will make application to the Court for dismissal for want of prosecution. LR 41−1 dismissal deadline set for 11/29/2013. (ASB) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
170 STATUS REPORT filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Naccarato, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

Case: 2:05-cv-1125 As of: 11/16/2019 03:55 PM PST 16 of 16

03/20/2014

171 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Kent J. Dawson, on 3/20/2014. By Deputy Clerk: Denise Saavedra. The Court having reviewed this case with no matters pending before the Court and good cause appearing ORDERS this case to be administratively closed. The Court retains jurisdiction for the enforcement of the Court's order 165 . The case is subject to being reopened on motion by either party. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − DXS) (Entered: 03/20/2014)

 
 07-17221 Summary

https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=Cas...

Court Home Case Search Orders/Judgments Billing History XML TXT

Logout Help

If you view the Full Docket you will be charged for 1 Pages $0.08

General Docket United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 07-17221 Nature of Suit: 1442 Jobs EEOC v. Prospect Airport Appeal From: U.S. District Court, Las Vegas

Docketed: 12/07/2007

Case Type Information: 1) civil 2) united states 3) null

Originating Court Information: District: 0978-2 : CV-05-01125-KJD/GWF Trial Judge: Kent J. Dawson, U.S. District Judge Date Filed: 09/13/2005 Date Order/Judgment: 09/27/2007

Date NOA Filed: 11/20/2007

12/20/2007 11 Filed notice of representation of EEOC. (NAN) [07-17221]

12/21/2007 5 Filed Appellant EEOC's motion to extend time to file appellant's opening brief until 2/15/08. [07-17221] [07-17221] served on 12/20/07 [6382820]. PROMO [07-17221]

12/24/2007 7 Notice received from Appellant EEOC re: proof of svc of court documents served on aple's. (NAN)

12/27/2007 6 Filed order CONFATT (bls)....A settlement conf will be held by telephone on 1/4/08 at 10:00 a.m PST....The brfing sch prev set by the court remains in effect. [07-17221]

12/31/2007 9

Filed order (Deputy Clerk: lkk) Appellant's motion for extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief due 2/15/08. The answering brief is due 3/17/08. The optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [07-17221]

01/10/2008 14 Rec'd notice of change of address from James D. Hibbard for Appellee Prospect Airport dated 1/4/08. New Address: 3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Ste. 550, Las Vegas, NV 89169. [07-17221]

01/11/2008 13 Filed order CONFATT (MAC) The assessment conf prev set for 1/4/08 is rescheduled to 1/14/08 at 11:00 a.m. PST. [07-17221]

02/20/2008 15 Filed order CONFATT (MAC) The court has determined that this appeal will not be selected for inclusion in the Mediation Program. All further inquiries regarding this appeal, including requests for ext of time, should be directed to the Clerk's office.... [07-17221]

1 of 2

3/22/2008 3:47 PM

07-17221 Summary

https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=Cas...

02/27/2008 16 Filed original and 15 copies Appellant EEOC opening brief (Informal: no) 41 pages and five excerpts of record in 2 volumes; served on 2/15/08 [07-17221]
03/21/2008 17 Filed original and 15 copies of Appellee Prospect Airport Services, INC answering brief of 30 pages. Supplemental Excerpts of record in 1 volume. Served on 03/17/2008.

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

03/22/2008 13:46:21

wu0079

Client Code:

Case Summary Search Criteria:

1

Cost:

eeoc 07-17221 0.08

2 of 2

3/22/2008 3:47 PM