Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cv-06053/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cv-06053-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Colorado Grill
Defendant
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Plaintiff
ISSA Enterprises, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-6053

ISSA ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a

COLORADO GRILL DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 29th day of August, 2007, comes on for

consideration Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (document

#19), and from said motion, and the response thereto, the Court

finds and orders as follows:

1. In this Title VII case, plaintiff alleges that defendant

sexually harassed several female employees, and then retaliated

against those employees by terminating them when they complained

of the harassment. 

Defendant now moves for summary judgment, contending that it

did not have the requisite number of employees for the requisite

time period to bring it within the purview of Title VII.

Plaintiff has responded to the motion, and it is ripe for

decision.

2. Summary judgment should be granted when the record,

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and

giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences, shows

that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Walsh v. United States,

Case 6:06-cv-06053-JLH Document 36 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

31 F.3d 696 (8th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is not appropriate

unless all the evidence points toward one conclusion, and is

susceptible of no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of

the nonmoving party. Hardin v. Hussmann Corp., 45 F.3d 262 (8th

Cir. 1995). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the

non-existence of a genuine factual dispute; however, once the

moving party has met that burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest

on its pleadings, but must come forward with facts showing the

existence of a genuine dispute. City of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa v.

Associated Electric Co-op, 838 F.2d 268 (8th Cir. 1988).

3. The term "employer" is defined, for Title VII purposes,

as "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has

fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty

or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year."

42 U.S.C. 2000e(b). This threshold number is "an element of

plaintiff's claim for relief, not a jurisdictional issue."

Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006). 

The Complaint, filed on September 20, 2006, alleges that from

about August 1, 2003, defendant had engaged in unlawful employment

practices, including sexual harassment. The parties agree that

the current calendar year, for 2006(b) purposes, is 2006; the

preceding calendar year is 2005.

4. Defendant has presented documentation, and various forms

of analysis of that documentation, aimed at establishing that it

Case 6:06-cv-06053-JLH Document 36 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

did not have fifteen or more employees for each working day in

each of twenty or more calendar weeks in 2005 or 2006, the

relevant years.

Plaintiff counters with evidence that contradicts defendant's

calculations, including the following:

* The Affidavit of Tammie Rodriguez, which avers that

Ismael Aguirre Jr. worked in 2005 from January through

September. He is not included in defendant's list of

employees for 2005.

* The Affidavit of Elan Kesilman Fowler, which avers that

for six months in 2005, two boys worked for defendant

who are not shown on defendant's list of employees.

* The Affidavit of Reannan Howell, which avers that an

employee named Holly Phillips worked for defendant "for

about six months" in 2005. Phillips is not included in

defendant's list of 2005 employees. 

* Howell further avers that she worked for defendant from

September, 2004, until September, 2005, and that

defendant always had "over 15 employees."

These Affidavits create a genuine issue of material fact

precluding summary judgment in this case. Reasonable jurors could

find that the employees noted in these Affidavits did, in fact,

work for defendant, and that, when added to the employees listed

by defendant, defendant had 15 or more employees for 20 or more

Case 6:06-cv-06053-JLH Document 36 Filed 08/29/07 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

weeks in 2005. Defendant's motion will, therefore, be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion For Summary

Judgment (document #19) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:06-cv-06053-JLH Document 36 Filed 08/29/07 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>