Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02978/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02978-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Patricia A. Shiu, State Bar No. 104894

Elizabeth Kristen, State Bar No. 218227 

Sharon Terman, State Bar No. 237236 

THE LEGAL AID SOCIETYEMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER 

600 Harrison St., Suite 120 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Telephone: (415) 864-8848 

Facsimile: (415) 864-8199 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Hong Lu 

William Kwong, State Bar No. 168010

Ai Mori, State Bar No. 208618 

MINAMI, LEW & TAMAKI, LLP 

360 Post Street, 8th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108-4903 

Telephone: 415-788-9000 

Facsimile: 415-398-3887 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Sheng Kee Bakery & Café and Karl Wen 

 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

HONG LU, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SHENG KEE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. d/b/a 

SHENG KEE BAKERY AND CAFÉ, and 

KARL WEN, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. C 05 2978-EDL 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

CONTINUING JURISDICTION 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on September 20, 2005, alleging discrimination, 

including harassment, on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended; discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of 

national origin, language, and sex, and failure to prevent or remedy discrimination or harassment 

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended 

CASE NO. C 05 2978-EDL 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH CONTINUING JURISDICTION Page 1 

 

29

Case 3:05-cv-02978-EDL Document 23 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(“Title VII”), and the Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code § 12900 

et seq. (“FEHA”); discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of age in violation of the 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”) and the FEHA; and 

retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, ADEA, the FEHA, and various common 

law claims; 

WHEREAS, after extensive mediation and negotiation, the parties have reached a 

resolution of all claims, which is memorialized in a settlement agreement; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the express terms of the above-described settlement agreement, 

the parties have agreed that the Court will exercise its continuing jurisdiction over the Defendant 

Sheng Kee Of California, Inc. d/b/a Sheng Kee Bakery And Café according to the terms 

specified below; 

WHEREAS, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants contains the 

following provision regarding provision of training for employees: 

Sheng Kee agrees to conduct training sessions on discrimination and harassment (in 

appropriate languages spoken by 10 percent or more of the Sheng Kee workforce) for all 

its supervisory employees. The sessions will be led by a qualified attorney from Minami, 

Lew & Tamaki, LLP, or any other qualified attorney of Sheng Kee’s choice, and shall 

address the applicable laws and regulations surrounding harassment and discrimination, 

including, Title VII and the Fair Employment and Housing Act as well as applicable 

company policies. Qualified attorney shall mean a member in good standing of the 

California Bar who has knowledge of California and federal laws prohibiting unlawful 

harassment, discrimination and retaliation and has at least 3 years of legal experience in 

the areas of harassment, discrimination and retaliation. The training shall include written 

materials (in appropriate languages spoken by 10 percent or more of the Sheng Kee 

workforce), including, but not limited to, Sheng Kee’s personnel policies and complaint 

procedure. The first three trainings shall last three hours and the remaining training shall 

CASE NO. C 05 2978-EDL 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH CONTINUING JURISDICTION Page 2 

 

29

Case 3:05-cv-02978-EDL Document 23 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

last two hours and must be interactive, include hypothetical situations and allow for 

questions from attendees. Prior to the commencement of the first training, LAS-ELC 

shall have 15 days to review the training materials and offer comment. Defendants shall 

make reasonable changes to the materials based on LAS-ELC’s input. The first such 

session shall occur within six months of the execution of this Agreement. The second 

session shall occur by the end of 2008. The third session shall occur by the end of 2010. 

The fourth session shall occur by the end of 2012. Sheng Kee shall maintain a list of 

each employee that has attended the training and the length of their attendance and shall, 

within two weeks of the completion of each training session, inform LAS-ELC by letter 

that the training has been conducted and shall inform counsel as to the names of 

employees trained at that session. In addition, for all new employees hired after 

December 1, 2006, Sheng Kee shall provide to them, in an appropriate language, a 

written one page summary of the company’s policy on discrimination and harassment as 

well as the company complaint procedure including phone numbers of the persons to 

whom complaints may be directed. The employee shall be afforded time to review the 

policy and ask any questions about it. The employee then shall initial each paragraph to 

indicate he or she has reviewed it and shall be provided a copy of it. Prior to December 

1, 2006, LAS-ELC shall have 15 days to review the written one page summary and offer 

comment. Defendants shall make reasonable changes to the summary based on LASELC’s input. 

 

WHEREAS, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants contains the 

following provision regarding policy revisions: 

Within ninety days of execution of this Agreement, Sheng Kee will revise its 

discrimination and harassment policies to explain what constitutes discrimination and 

harassment (including providing examples) and to provide a clear, coherent and detailed 

CASE NO. C 05 2978-EDL 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH CONTINUING JURISDICTION Page 3 

 

29

Case 3:05-cv-02978-EDL Document 23 Filed 08/30/06 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

complaint procedure that allows an employee to bypass his or her manager and complain 

to a corporate representative. Appropriate corporate designees to receive complaints 

shall be listed by name and phone number in the policies. The policies also shall set forth 

a detailed investigation procedure for complaints of harassment and discrimination 

including designating who is charged with investigating such complaints and a 

reasonable time frame during which such investigation should be completed. The LASELC shall be afforded an opportunity to review the policy revisions and offer comment. 

Sheng Kee shall make reasonable changes to the materials based on LAS-ELC’s input. 

Once finalized, these policies shall be completely translated into Chinese (and any other 

appropriate languages spoken by 10 percent or more of the Sheng Kee workforce) and 

copies provided to all employees at Sheng Kee within ninety days. 

THEREFORE, this Court ORDERS as follows: 

1. Consistent with the above-incorporated provisions, and without affecting the 

finality of this Final Order of Dismissal, this Court shall retain continuing and exclusive 

jurisdiction to enforce the training and policy provisions of the agreement and the authority to 

make whatever orders are necessary to enforce compliance with said terms by the parties; 

2. Plaintiffs’ counsel may seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs via fee petition 

to this Court for any action taken to enforce compliance with said terms; 

CASE NO. C 05 2978-EDL 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH CONTINUING JURISDICTION Page 4 

 

29

Case 3:05-cv-02978-EDL Document 23 Filed 08/30/06 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. As to all other matters not described above, this ORDER constitutes a Final Order 

of Dismissal in this case. 

 

Dated: August 29, 2006 

Patricia A. Shiu 

Elizabeth Kristen 

Sharon Terman 

THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 

EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER 

By: ____/s/_Elizabeth Kristen____ 

Elizabeth Kristen 

Attorney for Plaintiff

HONG LU 

 William Kwong 

 Ai Mori

 MINAMI, LEW & TAMAKI, LLP 

By: ____/s/ William Kwong 

William Kwong 

Attorney for Defendants 

Sheng Kee Bakery & Café and Karl Wen 

CASE NO. C 05 2978-EDL 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH CONTINUING JURISDICTION Page 5 

 

29

Case 3:05-cv-02978-EDL Document 23 Filed 08/30/06 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pursuant to General Order No. 45 X. (B), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document 

has been obtained from Defendant’s counsel. 

Dated: August 29, 2006 

Patricia A. Shiu 

Elizabeth Kristen 

Sharon Terman 

THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 

EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER 

By: ____/s/_Elizabeth Kristen 

Elizabeth Kristen 

Attorney for Plaintiff

HONG LU

CASE NO. C 05 2978-EDL 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH CONTINUING JURISDICTION Page 6 

 

29

Case 3:05-cv-02978-EDL Document 23 Filed 08/30/06 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated:

 Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte 

CASE NO. C 05 2978-EDL 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH CONTINUING JURISDICTION Page 7 

 

29

August 30, 2006

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:05-cv-02978-EDL Document 23 Filed 08/30/06 Page 7 of 7