Case 4:04-cv-OOO75-PNB Document 38 Filed 03/04/2005 Page 1 of 5

IN TI~E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN D|STR|CT OF TEXAS N D~VISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNI[Y COMMISSION,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4-04-CV-75 AMENDED COMPLA|NT

TELESERVICES MARKETING CO~O tON AND GENEraL TELEMARKETING ~NTERNATIONAL

NATURE OF THE ACT|ON This is a_~ actio~ ander T~fle VII of ~he Civil Rights Act of 1964 to co~ec~ tmlawfal employment practices ~nd to make v&ole Charging P~y, BaNker A~ BaNkeL T]ae Commissio~ al]eges that the De~i~dants, i’elesec,4ces Mark¢~i~ Corpormion ( aher ~Telese~ices" or "’ FMC~’) a~d GenerN Te~em ~ing IntemadonN Inco~om~ed (hereal~er "GTtI"’~ violamd Title VH effl3e Clvfl Rights Act of t 964. as amended, by tem’;~na~ing Mr. B£biker because of his ~affonal origin (Suda~ese)~
JURISdiCTION AND VEN 1. Jurisdiction of[his Cou~ is invoked ~ursu~ to 28 [LS.C. Sections 45 I. ~33 ~. 1337, 1343_ a~d 1345. ~is actien f ~ aufnorized arid institmed pursua~ ~o S ec~fons 706(Q~(1) a~d(3 ~ e f Title VI[ of fhe Civil Rights Ac~ of ~ 964. as anaend~J~ ~’Thle VI~~’ t. 42 U.S.C~ Sections 2000e~ 5(i)(1) a~od (3). and Section I02 effl~e Civil Ri~Ns Act of 1991~ 42 U.S.C. 1981a~ AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 4:04-cv-OOO75-PNB Document 38 Filed 03/04/2005 Page 2 of 5
2~ The employmen~ practices alleged to be mnla were c~ itted wi~Nin the j~trisdiction of the United States Distric~ Con~ for ~he Eastern Dis~r~ct of Texas.
PARTIES Plaint~ff~ Equal Employment Opponur~ity Commiss~o~ agency of ~he United S~ates of America charged wit~q ,he adminis{ra~io~, interpreta{ion ~d enfi~rcement of Title VI~ and is ex pressl~ au~ho~zed {o bring this ac~on b?’ Section 706(a) of Title VtI. 42 U.S.C. Sectio~ At at1 relevam dines. Oethndm~ts. Te~ese~dces ~d GFIL have cominuot~sly been ~d are now doing business in ttae S~ate of Texas. and have cem~mmus]y had at least fifteen employees. 5. At a(~l relewm~ times. De~endants ha~e continuously been em p{o?’ers engaged industu a*~ffc~ing commerce ,~]thin the meaning of Sections 701(b)~ (g) and (h} ef’Iitle VII. 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-(b), (g) a,ad
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS More thma thirb days prior to Ne institution of Nis ~a~;~%uit. Mr. Babiker flied a charge with t}~e Commissio~a Nleging ,.iolNiens of Ti~e ~,II b? ~he De~?.ndants. All conditions ar~eder~ to the imstimtion of~his lawsuit have been 7. Beginning abo~t August 2000. Defendants discriminated against Mr. BaNker m x,ola~on o{ Sec~o~? 70a(al ~f Tide Vgi 42 IJ.S.C. Section 2000e-2. Sp ci~caI1 ~ Defendma~s ~e~ina{ed Mr. BaNker because of h~s na~io~a~ origin~ Sudanese. wb~en a customer complained about Mr. Bab~ker. describing Mr. Bab~ker as bax. mg ~veq: broke~a English. 8. The efi)ec~ of the erac~ices comelained equa~ employment oppor~eni~ies because of his nmional c}~g in (Sudanese).
A~4ENDED COMPLA|NT

Case 4:04-cv-OOO75-PNB Document 38 Filed 03/04/2005 Page 3 of 5

fhe UrtiaWf~dl emp~oymem practices complained of in paragraph 7. above, wen intentional.
The u~lawf)l employment practices complained of in paragraph 7o above, were done wifla malice ar reckless indifference to the ~?ederalI; protected rights of Mr. Babiker.
PP~XYER FOR LIEF Whercfbrco ~he Commission rcs~ct~al~y requests that this G~:~n~ a permanent iR~unction en}0ining the Del~n~nts. Telese~¢ices and (?TII. their o~N, cers~ successors~ assigns~ a~d, at1 persons i~ active co~ce~ or pa~;icipat~on ai~h ~hem_ engaging in any employment practice which di~minmes in violation of l~’itle VII and. specifically, from ~e~i~a~i~ag employees because el" their national origha in violad~ n of Title VII. Order the Def~ndams to i~sdtule and carG’ ot~ policies~ practices, m~d programs whic]~ provide equal employment e ppe~amalties fbr Mr. Babiker. m~d ~hich eradicate the e ~s of past and prcsm~t u~fla~Tu~ employme~ practices. C. Order the Defendants to make whole Mr, BaNker by providing appropfime back pay w~th pre[udgmen~ interest in ~ounts to be proved at trial, and other affirmative reliefnccessaU eradicate the cff?acis of raft 1 employme[~t pract[ces~ h~cl~ing but nat ~imhed ~o reinstating BaNker. Order ~e Oei~end~ts to make who~e Mr, BaNker by providing comper~saiioa for pas~ and ~hture non-pec~miaQ~ losses resulting f?om the unlawih[ practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, includh~g but ~ao~ ~im[ted to. pah~ and suffering, humiliation, emba~ssment, emotioiaa{ distress, anxiety and loss of eNoyme~t of lif~. in amovm, s to be determined at trial Order the Dei%ndants to ma&e Whole Mr, Babik~cr, ~,, providing compensation ~br pas~

Ar~ENDED CONPLA[NT

3

Case 4:04-cv-OOO75-PNB Document 38 Filed 03/04/2005 Page 4 of 5
and future pecuniary losses resulting f>om Ehe anlawihl practices complained of {n pm~agraphs 7.
above_ in amounts to ~ detcm~{ned at ~rial.
Order the Defendants to pay punitive d~ages il~r its malicious or ~ck~ess conduct
described in pm~agrap}~ 7. abjure, in amounts to be detemained at trial
such further relief as the Cour~ deems necess~y and proper.
Award the Commission its costs in this action.
a IJRY TRIAL DENIAND requests a juQ, thai on all questmns ot fact rinsed by the complaint
RespecttElly submf{ted.
ER|C So DRE~BAND Genem~ CounseI
JAMES L, LEE Depu{y General Counsel
G ~E OL~ ~ OL~G REAMS Associate General Counsel
SUZANNE M, ANDERSON Acting ReglonaI Attorne? Texa~ Sta{~e No. 04855720
KERI L, MALLON Senior Trial A~tomey Colorado Bar No. 27392 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT’ OPPORT COMMISS|ON Dallas District Otff~ce 207 South Houston. 3rd Floor DNlas. Texas 75202 {214} 253°2743 (214~ 253-2749 (FAX)
ANIENDED CO~I PLAINT

Case 4:04-cv-OOO75-PNB Document 38 Filed 03/04/2005 Page 5 of 5
~ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE tha~ a true cop? of t~e foregoing has been served on all counsel of record for
. postage prepaid, o~ th{s the 2005
Gr~e Weather~ y She~° Shipmmq Wood, Tl~acker & Weat]aerly. 400 Wes ~ O~. Suite Denton, Texas 76201

 </s> Case 4:04-cv-00075-PNB Document 109 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO

PI LED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
T.

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXA SHERMAN DIVISION

JUL 25 2006
5: 0

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintif),

§

§

v.

§

§

TELESERVICES MARKETING

§

CORPORATION AND GENERAL

§

TELEMARKETING INTERNATIONAL, §

INC.

§

BY
DE
Civil Action No. 4:04CV75
JUDGE RON CLARK.

LERK

Defendant.

VERDICT OF THE JURY

Interrogatory No.1:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Babiker A. Babiker suffered an adverse employment action by Teleservices Marketing Corporation because of his national origin?
Answer "Yes" or "No"
~

If you answered "Yes" to Interrogatory No. 1, please proceed to Interrogatory No. 2. If you answered "No" to Interrogatory No.1, do not answer any other Interrogatories.

Case 4:04-cv-00075-PNB Document 109 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 2 of 4
Interrogatory No.2: Did Teleservices Marketing Corporation and General Telemarketing International, Inc.
operate as an integrated enterprise? Answer "Yes" or "No"
Proceed to Interrogatory No.3.

Case 4:04-cv-00075-PNB Document 109 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 3 of 4
Interrogatory No.3: What amount ofmonetary damages, ifany, would fairly and reasonably compensate Babiker
A. Babiker for the emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and/or loss of enjoyment of life that Mr. Babiker has suffered or will continue to suffer?
Please answer in dollars and cents, if any: Amount:$_ _ _ _ _ _ __
Please proceed to Interrogatory No.4.

Case 4:04-cv-00075-PNB Document 109 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 4 of 4
Interrogatory No.4: What amount of punitive damages, if any, should be awarded for malice or reckless
indifference to Babiker A. Babiker's federally protected rights? Please answer in dollars and cents, if any: Amount: $_ _ _ _ _ _ __
******************************************************************************
~eperson (Initials Only)
Please sign full name on back of this page.

 </s> Case 4:04-cv-00075-PNB Document 110 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

v.

§

§

TELESERVICES MARKETING

§

CORPORATION AND GENERAL

§

TELEMARKETING INTERNATIONAL, §

INC.

§

Civil Action No. 4:04CV75 JUDGE RON CLARK

Defendant.

FINAL JUDGMENT This action came on for trial before the Court and a jury, Honorable Ron Clark, United States District Judge, presiding, and the issues having been duly tried and the jury having rendered its verdict, It is Ordered and Adjudged that the Plaintiff take nothing, that the action be dismissed on the merits, and that the Defendants Telerservices Marketing Corporation and General Telemarketing International, Inc. recover of the Plaintiff EEOC its costs of action.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26 day of July, 2006.

___________________________________ Ron Clark, United States District Judge

 </s> Case 4:04-cv-00075-PNB Document 39 Filed 03/15/2005 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

v.

§

§

TELESERVICES MARKETING

§

CORPORATION AND GENERAL

§

TELEMARKETING INTERNATIONAL, §

INC.,

§

4:04cv75

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
On March 15, 2005, the Court held a telephonic hearing on Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. No. 31), EEOC’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Deposition Upon Written Questions and Documents to be Produced (Doc. No. 30), and Defendant Teleservices Marketing Corporation’s (“TMC”) Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Doc. No. 32). Having considered the motions, the responses and the arguments of counsel, the Court made certain oral rulings that are herein reduced to writing.
The EEOC filed a motion to compel the answer to an interrogatory that dealt with the transfer of assets out of TMC. The Court is of the opinion that the financial condition of TMC is relevant to the issue of punitive damages and is discoverable. Accordingly, TMC’s Motion to Compel an answer to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 25 should be granted, but the scope of the

Case 4:04-cv-00075-PNB Document 39 Filed 03/15/2005 Page 2 of 3
answer should be limited in time to the date of the filing of Mr. Babiker’s charge of discrimination up until the trial of this case.
The EEOC also filed a Motion to Quash Defendant’s Deposition Upon Written Questions. TMC argues that the subpoena for depositions on written questions and documents to be produced therewith that was directed to John Kelleher, Chief Counsel United States Secret Service and Cheryl McElroy, Custodian of Records for the United States Secret Service are relevant in this case to the issues of mitigation of damages and Mr. Babiker’s credibility. The Court is not persuaded that mitigation of damages is an issue in this case, but the depositions on written questions could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to Mr. Babiker’s credibility. However, the Court finds that the scope of the current depositions on written questions is far too broad. Accordingly, TMC shall reissue new depositions on written questions to determine whether Mr. Babiker was ever employed by the Secret Service and the dates of that employment, if any.1 TMC shall reissue these new depositions on written questions within ten (10) days of the signing of this Order.
Finally, the Court considered TMC’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. Specifically, TMC moves to compel an answer to Request No. 2 of Defendant’s First Request for Production to Plaintiff, which requests that Mr. Babiker produce his income tax returns, including all schedules, all W-2's and all other attachments for the year, beginning with the year
1
If necessary, any answers by the United States Secret Service may be filed under seal and subject to a protective order.
-2-

Case 4:04-cv-00075-PNB Document 39 Filed 03/15/2005 Page 3 of 3 1993 through the time of trial. The Court overrules this motion without prejudice to TMC’s reurging the motion at a later date.
It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 15th day of March, 2005.
_______________________________________ PAUL BROWN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-

 </s> 405 F.Supp.2d 724 (2005)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
TELESERVICES MARKETING CORPORATION and General Telemarketing International, Inc., Defendants.
No. 4:04 CV 75.
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division.
December 14, 2005.
7256 *725 *726 Keri Lyn Mallon, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.
Grace Ann Weatherly, Richard William Wood, Wood Thacker & Weatherly, Denton, TX, Jeffrey Jack Burley, Brewer Anthony Middlebrook Burley & Dunn, Sherman, TX, for Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TELESERVICES MARKETING CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PAUL N. BROWN, Senior District Judge.
On this day came on for consideration Defendant Teleservices Marketing Corporation's ("TMC") Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 44]. Having considered the motion, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") opposition, TMC's reply and EEOC's surreply, the Court is of the opinion the motion should be Denied.
Background
The EEOC brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on behalf of Charging Party, Babiker A. Babiker ("Babiker"). The EEOC alleges that TMC violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by terminating Babiker because of his national origin, which is Sudanese.
TMC is in the business of providing telemarketing services. TMC initially hired Babiker in 2001 as an outbound customer service agent selling cellular phones and rate plans for Verizon. Babiker was laid off approximately one year later, along with all TMC employees working on the campaign, when Verizon discontinued the campaign. In July of 2002, TMC entered into a contract with a new customer, ATX Technologies ("ATX"). ATX provided global positioning systems ("GPS") for Mercedes-Benz automobiles. At the time ATX and TMC entered into the contract, Babiker was employed with another employer. TMC recruited Babiker, and as a result, Babiker left his employment to return to TMC.
The ATX campaign required twenty customer service agents, also referred to as telephone sales representatives or "TSRs." The TSRs were responsible for making calls to Mercedes-Benz owners, who had purchased their cars in the preceding year in an attempt to renew their GPS service, which was provided free during the first year of 727 ownership. If the customer indicated to the TSR that he wanted to renew *727 the GPS service, the TSR was to obtain the customer's credit card information so that the renewal fee could be charged to the customer.
At some point after Babiker began working on the ATX campaign, TMC received a complaint from ATX about a call involving Babiker. The client complained that Babiker spoke broken English and was abrupt in asking a Mercedes-Benz owner for his credit card information. The president of TMC, Michael Cole, stated that Babiker was not the caliber of representative that ATX wanted working on their campaign.
A recording was made of the telephone call in question, which was reviewed by Babiker's supervisor Jah Harbour. Initially after listening to the call, Harbour found Babiker easy to understand. Harbour did however testify

that he believed Babiker spoke broken English. Harbour testified that he knew that Babiker's accent played a role in the decision to remove Babiker from the ATX campaign and that ATX's issue with Babiker's accent is that he had one.
Babiker was removed from the ATX campaign. After his removal, Babiker was offered a position for less money somewhere else in the company. TMC contends it was a telemarketing position, but Babiker claims he was offered a manual labor position. After terminating Babiker, Cole wrote a letter of recommendation for Babiker complementing Babiker on his work performance and professionalism.
Summary Judgment Standard
The granting of summary judgment is proper if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). The trial court must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion. Casey Enters. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir.1981) (citations omitted). The party seeking summary judgment carries the burden of demonstrating that there is no actual dispute as to any material fact in the case. This burden, however, does not require the moving party to produce evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party satisfies its burden by "pointing out to the district court . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not impose a duty on a district court to "sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment." Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 463 (5th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). Once the moving party has satisfied its burden, the nonmovant must "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). Such nonmovant must also articulate the precise manner in which evidence he sets forth supports his claims. See Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). Moreover, in designating specific facts, the nonmovant must "`go beyond the pleadings'" and use "`his own affidavits, . . . deposition[s], answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.'" Jones v. Sheehan, Young & Culp, P.C., 82 F.3d 1334, 1338 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).[1]
728 *728 If the nonmovant fails to set forth specific facts in support of allegations essential to that party's claim and on which that party will bear the burden of proof, then summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53. Even if the nonmovant brings forth evidence in support of its allegations, summary judgment will be appropriate unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is "merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citations omitted).
Discussion
As an initial matter, the Court addresses TMC's objection to the Declaration of Shana Gentle. To the extent that Gentle's declaration is not proper summary judgment evidence, the Court did not rely on it. However, Gentle's statement that other individuals employed on the ATX campaign had strong accents that would be considered American accents constitutes competent summary judgment evidence. Gentle supervised the individuals working on the ATX campaign and would have first-hand knowledge of their linguistic characteristics.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of national origin. A plaintiff can prove intentional national origin discrimination through either direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination. Grimes v. Texas Dep't of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 102 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir.1996). To establish intentional discrimination by circumstantial evidence, an individual must first establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination. Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). In order to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination, the plaintiff must show 1) that the individual is a member of a protected class; 2) that he was qualified for the position; 3) that he was terminated from the position; and 4) that he was replaced by a person outside the protected group, or that he was

discharged because of his national origin. Winter v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 3:02-CV-1591-L, 2003 WL 23200278, *3, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *11 (N.D.Tex. Dec. 12, 2003) (citing Byers v. Dallas Morning News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 425-26 (5th Cir.2000) (stating that the four-part test for establishing a prima facie case should not be applied too mechanically. The fact that an individual is replaced by one of a different national origin is neither sufficient nor necessary to raise an inference of discrimination)). The burden of establishing a prime facie case is not onerous. Burdine, 101 S.Ct. at 1094. "To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff need only make a very minimal showing." Nichols v. Loral Vought Sys. Corp., 81 F.3d 38, 41 (5th Cir.1996) (quoting Thornbrough v. Columbus & Greenville R.R. Co., 760 F.2d 633, 639 (5th Cir.1985)).
Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, a presumption of discrimination arises. Burdine, 101 S.Ct. at 1094. The burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its employment decision. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2747, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); McDonnell Douglas, 93 S.Ct. at 1824. The defendant's burden is one of production, not persuasion. Once the defendant provides a legitimate reason for its employment decision, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to 729 prove that the *729 reason given is merely a pretext for discrimination. Hicks, 113 S.Ct. at 2749; McDonnell Douglas, 93 S.Ct. at 1825. The plaintiff need not always introduce additional evidence of discrimination over and above his prima facie case. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). "[A] plaintiff's prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated." Id. at 2109.
The EEOC contends that it has provided direct evidence of discrimination making summary judgment improper because Babiker was fired as a result of his accent, which is in essence national origin discrimination. TMC contends that no direct evidence of discrimination exists. The Code of Federal Regulations "defines national origin discrimination broadly as including, but not limited to, the denial of equal employment opportunity because . . . an individual has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a national origin or group." 29 C.F.R. 1606.1. "[N]ational origin is deemed to be inextricably intertwined with an individual's accent." Madiebo v. Div. of Medicaid/ State of Mississippi, et al., 2 F.Supp.2d 851, 855 (S.D.Miss.1997) (citing Fragante v. City of Honolulu, 888 F.2d 591, 596 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied 494 U.S. 1081, 110 S.Ct. 1811, 108 L.Ed.2d 942 (1990)). As a result, discrimination against an individual based on the characteristics of his speech is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Id. Unlawful discrimination based on national origin does not occur if an individual's manner of speaking or accent affects his ability to effectively perform his job. Id. But "[b]ecause the evaluation of a person's communication skills is an inherently subjective determination, district courts are encouraged to give such claims a very searching look" so as to determine whether a claim that an individual lacked communication skills is not just an attempt to disguise national origin discrimination. Id. In this case the EEOC has presented sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to whether it has established through direct evidence, that TMC unlawfully discriminated against Babiker. Certainly the fact that TMC had employed Babiker in an outbound calling campaign for Verizon and subsequently recruited him from another job to participate in the outbound calling campaign for ATX is at least some evidence that he was qualified for the position. Jah Harbour testified in his deposition that he and Cole made the decision to terminate Babiker and that Babiker's accent played a role in their decision to terminate Babiker. Jah Harbour further testified that he didn't recall whether he was actually the one who removed Babiker from the campaign. The testimony of Harbour in and of itself creates a fact issue as to whether EEOC can establish intentional discrimination through direct evidence. Accordingly, summary judgment is improper in this case.
A plaintiff may also prove unlawful discrimination through circumstantial evidence under the burden shifting framework set out in McDonnell Douglas. Grimes, 102 F.3d at 140. TMC contends that summary judgment should be granted because the EEOC lacks evidence on two factors necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination: 2) that Babiker was qualified for the position and 4) that Babiker was replaced by a person outside the protected group, or that he was discharged because of his national origin. As previously discussed, the Court 730 is of the opinion that the EEOC has put forth sufficient evidence to create a question of fact *730 as to whether Babiker was qualified for the position. Additionally, the Court has previously determined that a question of fact remains as to whether Babiker was unlawfully discriminated against because of his national origin. Harbour testified the he and Cole made the decision to terminate Babiker. He also testified that ATX's issue with Babiker's accent is that he had one. The burden for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination is not onerous, and

here the EEOC has clearly provided evidence sufficient to create questions of fact as to whether it has established a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination.
Once the EEOC has met its burden for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden of production shifts to TMC to provide a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination. While TMC's motion does not make perfectly clear its legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Babiker, the Court interprets TMC's motion as stating that it terminated Babiker because he was not qualified for the position in that he was unable to effectively communicate with customers. In providing this legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for Babiker's termination, TMC has met its burden.
Because TMC has met its burden of production, the burden shifts back to the EEOC to prove that the reason provided is merely a pretext for discrimination. As previously stated, the EEOC need not always introduce additional evidence of discrimination over and above its prima facie case. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). "[A] plaintiff's prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated." Id. at 2109. Issues of material fact remain in this case as to whether TMC's proffered reason for Babiker's termination is a merely a pretext for unlawful discrimination based on national origin.[2] Babiker was previously employed with TMC in a position in which he made outbound calls to Verizon customers. He and all the other employees on the Verizon campaign were laid off when that campaign ended. When TMC obtained a new client and needed to again hire individuals to make outbound calls to customers on behalf of a client, it actually recruited Babiker from other employment to come back to TMC as a TSR. At this point, TMC arguably regarded Babiker as qualified to make outbound calls. A Mercedes-Benz customer then complained about Babiker, and the complaint was relayed to Harbour. Upon his initial review of the call, Harbour sent an email that stated he found Babiker easy to understand. Ultimately, Babiker was terminated. Harbour testified that he and Cole made the decision to terminate Babiker based on the client's complaint. He also testified that ATX's issue with Babiker's accent was that he had one. Further, Shana Gentle stated in her declaration that other individuals working on the ATX campaign who were not terminated had strong accents, but 731 their accents would be considered American accents. This evidence *731 is sufficient to create a question of fact as to whether TMC's proffered reason for terminating Babiker was pretextual. Accordingly, TMC's motion for summary judgment should be denied.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Teleservices Marketing Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment should be DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
[1] The Court also notes that Local Rule CV-56(b) states that a party's response to a summary judgment motion should "be supported by appropriate citations to proper summary judgment evidence. . . ." Local Rule CV-56(c) further states that the Court will not "scour the record in an attempt to determine whether the record contains an undesignated genuine issue of material fact for trial before entering summary judgment."
[2] In an apparent attempt to discredit the EEOC's summary judgment evidence, TMC attempts to question whether John Harbour and Jah Harbour are in fact the same person and the individual who was responsible for supervising Babiker. While Harbour clearly had some difficulty with his recollection during his deposition testimony, the Court is satisfied that the correct individual was deposed in this case. Harbour's deposition was conducted in the offices of TMC's attorneys and TMC also attached portions of his deposition to its own motion for summary judgment.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 </s> E.E.O.C. v. Teleservices Marketing Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2006 WL 297760 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
TELESERVICES MARKETING CORPORATION and General Telemarketing International Inc.,
Defendant.
No. 4:04CV75. | Feb. 8, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Keri Lyn Mallon, Toby W. Costas, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.
Grace Ann Weatherly, Sherry Lynn Shipman, Wood Thacker & Weatherly, Denton, TX, for Defendant.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING GENERAL TELEMARKETING INTERNATIONAL,
INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BROWN, Senior J.
*1 On this day came on for consideration Defendant General Telemarketing International Inc.’s (“GTII”) Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 43]. Having considered the motion, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) response, GTII’s reply and the additional briefing filed by the parties upon the Court’s request, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be DENIED.
Procedural History
This case was transferred from the Northern District of Texas on March 3, 2004, and on July 28, 2004, the parties appeared before this Court for a pre-trial scheduling conference. The Court set certain deadlines at the scheduling conference including the deadline for amending pleadings of August 31, 2004. On September 30, 2004, EEOC sought leave to amend its complaint to add a defendant. In its Motion to Amend the Complaint, the EEOC specifically stated that it desired to add GTII as

a defendant under a joint employer theory of liability. Defendant TMC, through its counsel, filed a response to the EEOC’s motion, in which it responded to the assertion of the joint employer theory of liability. On March 1, 2005, the Court granted the EEOC’s Motion to Amend, noting that while the time for amending pleadings without being granted leave of the Court had expired, the deadline for the joinder of additional parties had not expired. Further, the Court stated that it would allow the EEOC an opportunity to present its best case to support the single employer and joint employer theories of liability.
On April 1, 2005, GTII, through the same counsel representing Defendant Teleservices Marketing Corporation (“TMC”), filed a motion entitled “Defendant General Telemarketing International, Inc .’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” The initial sentence of the pleading states that GTII filed this “Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides for the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings and specifically states that:
[i]f, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided by Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Additionally, GTII attached evidence to its motion. Because of the ambiguity of the GTII’s motion, and in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court issued an Order on July 5, 2005, informing the parties that it would consider GTII’s motion as a motion for summary judgment on or after July 18, 2005. The Court’s Order also provided that both parties could submit supplemental summary judgment evidence in support of or in opposition to the motion on or before that date. Neither party submitted any supplemental summary judgment evidence or briefing in response to the Court’s Order.
*2 On December 16, 2005, the Court ordered the parties to provide additional briefing on the issue of whether the EEOC was required to plead the integrated employer theory of liability against GTII in it’s Amended Complaint in order to be entitled to present evidence on that theory. The parties submitted their additional briefing on January 3, 2006.
1

E.E.O.C. v. Teleservices Marketing Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

Background
The EEOC brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on behalf of Charging Party, Babiker A. Babiker (“Babiker”). The EEOC alleges that TMC and GTII violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by terminating Babiker because of his national origin, which is Sudanese.
TMC is in the business of providing telemarketing services. TMC initially hired Babiker in 2001 as an outbound customer service agent selling cellular phones and rate plans for Verizon. Babiker was laid off approximately one year later, along with all TMC employees working on the campaign, when Verizon discontinued the campaign. In July of 2002, TMC entered into a contract with a new customer, ATX Technologies (“ATX”). ATX provided global positioning systems (“GPS”) for Mercedes-Benz automobiles. At the time ATX and TMC entered into the contract Babiker was employed with another employer. TMC recruited Babiker, and as a result, Babiker left his employment to return to TMC.
The ATX campaign required twenty customer service agents, also referred to as telephone sales representatives or “TSRs.” The TSRs were responsible for making calls to Mercedes-Benz owners, who had purchased their cars in the preceding year in an attempt to renew their GPS service, which was provided free during the first year of ownership. If the customer indicated to the TSR that he wanted to renew the GPS service, the TSR was to obtain the customer’s credit card information so that the renewal fee could be charged to the customer.
At some point after Babiker began working on the ATX campaign, TMC received a complaint from ATX about a call involving Babiker. The client complained that Babiker spoke broken English and was abrupt in asking a Mercedes-Benz owner for his credit card information. The complaint was forwarded to TMC and received by Ja Harbour via email. The email address at which Harbour received this complaint was “jah@gtiops.com.”, and the subject line of the email read “GTI Complaint.” Harbour’s signature block read “Ja Harbour, GTI Acc’t Mgr.”
A recording was made of the telephone call in question, which was reviewed by Babiker’s supervisor Harbour. After listening to the call, Harbour initially found Babiker easy to understand. Harbour did however testify that he believed Babiker spoke broken English. Harbour testified that he knew that Babiker’s accent played a role in the decision to remove Babiker from the ATX campaign and that ATX’s issue with Babiker’s accent is that he had one. Babiker was removed from the ATX campaign.
On August 19, 2002, Babiker filed a Charge of

Discrimination with the EEOC against Telemarketing Services Corporation stating that his supervisor, Shana Killerlain, told Babiker that he was being laid off because of a customer complaint about his broken English and that the president of the company, Michael Cole, told him that he was being pulled off the Mercedes-Benz campaign at the request of a customer.
*3 The EEOC took the deposition of Shannon Lewis (“Lewis”), who was designated to appear on behalf of TMC. Lewis testified that she was never employed by TMC, but that she did run payrolls for TMC, which included keeping personnel records, tracking time, filing quarterly and annual tax reports and producing weekly salary paychecks. Lewis was employed by GTII when she performed these duties for TMC. She performed the same duties for GTII. Lewis initially began working for General Telemarketing Incorporated (“GTI”) in April of 1993, but eventually all of the employees of GTI were transferred to GTII. Both GTII and TMC provided telemarketing services, but GTII only performed third-party verification services for inbound callers, while TMC provided both outbound calling and inbound caller services. Lewis’s boss at GTII was Stacy Beavers (“Beavers”), whose position with the company was secretary/treasurer. Beavers functioned in the same role at TMC. Lewis further testified that the president of GTII was Michael Cole, the operations manager for GTII was John Buchholz, and the campaign managers for GTII were Harbour and Jerry Davis. Lewis also testified that Harbour was not a campaign manager at TMC and was not employed by TMC in any way.
Lewis testified that while TMC no longer has a headquarters, it formerly shared offices with GTII’s corporate headquarters at 3923 Morse, Suite 101, Denton, Texas. TMC and GTII also shared the same facility at 1111 Avenue C in Denton. TMC and GTII used basically the same employment manual and shared the same phone system, meeting rooms, restrooms and benefit plans. Lewis also testified that Michael Cole was in charge of hiring and firing top management at both TMC and GTII. Lewis participated in making policy changes at both TMC and GTII. Finally, Lewis testified that when TMC got rid of its employees, they were offered new hire positions at GTII.
General Telemarketing International, Inc. is registered with the Nevada Secretary of State. Michael Cole is listed as its president, and Stacy Beavers is listed as its secretary/treasurer. Teleservices Marketing Corporation is registered with the Texas Secretary of State. Its registered agent for service is Stacy Beavers. Stacy Beavers is also listed as the secretary/treasurer and a director of TMC, and Michael Cole is listed as the president and a director of TMC.
2

E.E.O.C. v. Teleservices Marketing Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

Sufficiency of the Pleading
Defendant GTII argues that it never employed Babiker and that the EEOC’s Amended Complaint does not allege that GTII was Babiker’s employer. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) states that an original claim for relief “shall contain ... (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief....” No heightened pleading standard exists in employment discrimination cases. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, 998, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). A claimant’s short and plain statement of the claim “must simply ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” ’ Id. (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). “This simplified notice pleading standard relies on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and issues and to dispose of unmeritorious claims.” Id. If a pleading lacks the specificity to put the defendant on notice of the allegations against it, it can move for a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Id.
*4 The term “employer” under Title VII has been broadly interpreted and can include “ ‘superficially distinct entities that are sufficiently interrelated to constitute a single, integrated enterprise.” ’ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Allied Aviation Serv’s, No. 3-05-CV-1379-L, 2005 WL 2778646 *2 n. 2 (N.D.Tex. Oct.5, 2005) (quoting Lusk v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., 129 F.3d 773, 777 (5th Cir.1977)). “Such a determination involves a fact-intensive inquiry which precludes dismissal at the pleading stage.” Id. Here, the EEOC amended its complaint to include GTII as a defendant, alleging its employment discrimination claims against both GTII and TMC. GTII did not move for a more definite statement under 12(e). Moreover, GTII was fully aware of EEOC’s theory of liability against it based on the extensive briefing on the issue of joint or integrated employer liability by both parties when the EEOC sought to amend its complaint. While GTII was not a party to this lawsuit during that briefing, it shares a president with TMC, and counsel for TMC is also counsel for GTII. Therefore, in accordance with the Court’s Order of July 5, 2005, the Court will treat GTII’s motion as a motion for summary judgment.
Summary Judgment Standard
The granting of summary judgment is proper if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). The trial court must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion. Casey Enters. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602

(5th Cir.1981) (citations omitted). The party seeking summary judgment carries the burden of demonstrating that there is no actual dispute as to any material fact in the case. This burden, however, does not require the moving party to produce evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party satisfies its burden by “pointing out to the district court ... that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not impose a duty on a district court to “sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party’s opposition to summary judgment.” Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 463 (5th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). Once the moving party has satisfied its burden, the nonmovant must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). Such nonmovant must also articulate the precise manner in which evidence he sets forth supports his claims. See Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). Moreover, in designating specific facts, the nonmovant must “ ‘go beyond the pleadings” ’ and use “ ‘his own affidavits, ... deposition[s], answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.” ’ Jones v. Sheehan & Young Culp, P.C., 82 F.3d 1334, 1338 (5th Cir.1996) (citation omitted).1

1

The Court also notes that Local Rule CV-56(b) states

that a party’s response to a summary judgment motion

should “be supported by appropriate citations to proper

summary judgment evidence....” Local Rule CV-56(c)

further states that the Court will not “scour the record in

an attempt to determine whether the record contains an

undesignated genuine issue of material fact for trial

before entering summary judgment.”

*5 If the nonmovant fails to set forth specific facts in support of allegations essential to that party’s claim and on which that party will bear the burden of proof, then summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53. Even if the nonmovant brings forth evidence in support of its allegations, summary judgment will be appropriate unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citations omitted).

Discussion 3

E.E.O.C. v. Teleservices Marketing Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

As previously stated, “the term ‘employer’ as used in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was meant to be liberally construed.” Trevino v. Celanese Corp., 701 F.2d 397, 403 (5th Cir.1983) (citations omitted). “[S]uperficially distinct entities may be exposed to liability upon a finding that they represent a single, integrated enterprise....” Id. The factors to be considered when determining whether two entities represent an integrated enterprise are: “(1) interrelation of operations, (2) centralized control of labor relations, (3) common management, and (4) common ownership or financial control.” Id. The Court finds that questions of fact exist as to whether GTII and TMC satisfy the factors for establishing they operated as an integrated employer, precluding summary judgment.
The EEOC has presented summary judgment evidence that creates a question of fact as to whether an interrelation of operations existed between TMC and GTII. Lewis, who was employed by GTII but designated to testify on behalf of TMC, stated that she ran payrolls for TMC and GTII, which included keeping personnel records, tracking time, filing quarterly and annual tax reports and producing weekly salary paychecks. Lewis participated in making policy changes at both TMC and GTII. Lewis’s boss at GTII was Stacy Beavers, who served as GTII’s secretary/treasurer. Beavers held the same position at TMC. GTII and TMC shared the same facility, phone system, meeting rooms, restrooms, employment manual and benefit plan. Both GTII and TMC provided telemarketing services. GTII performed third-party verification services for inbound callers, while TMC provided both outbound calling and inbound caller services. Lewis testified that Harbour was employed with GTII and never employed with TMC, and Harbour’s email address and title indicated that he was employed with GTII. However, the complaint about Babiker was sent to him, and he reviewed the phone call in question. This evidence creates a question of fact as to whether GTII and TMC had interrelated operations.
Questions of fact remain as to whether centralized control over labor relations existed between GTII and TMC. Lewis testified that GTII and TMC shared an employment manual and that she participated in policy changes for both entities. She also testified that Beavers and Cole held the same position at both companies. Cole was also responsible for hiring and firing upper management at both companies.
*6 The third and fourth factors for establishing an integrated enterprise are common management and common ownership. As previously discussed, Beavers served in the same capacity at both entities in a management position. Cole was responsible for the hiring and firing of upper-management at both TMC and GTII. Further, Lewis testified that Harbour was in a management position at GTII, and Harbour received complaints as to Babiker’s performance while Babiker

was an employee at TMC. Cole is the president of both GTII and TMC and is a director of TMC. Beavers is the secretary/treasurer for both GTII and TMC and serves as the registered agent and as a director for TMC. This evidence is sufficient to create questions of fact as to whether TMC and GTII shared common management and common ownership. Accordingly, GTII’s motion for summary judgment should be denied.
GTII also argues that summary judgment should be granted because Babiker failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Court is not persuaded by this argument. GTII does not contend that Babiker wholly failed to file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC against TMC; rather, it contends that Babiker failed to file a charge of discrimination and attempt conciliation with GTII.2 The crux of the EEOC’s theory of liability against GTII is that it is a superficially distinct entity from TMC and that GTII and TMC essentially operated as a single integrated employer. As the Court has noted, questions of fact remain as to the EEOC’s theory of liability against GTII. If the EEOC prevails on its theory, the fact that GTII was not named in the charge of discrimination does not contravene the rule that Title VII defendants must be named in the EEOC charge. Wells v. Hutchison, 499 F.Supp. 174, 189-90 (E.D.Tex.1980) (finding that when two parties are the same entity for all relevant purposes, the fact that one party is not named in the EEOC charge does not contravene the rule that all defendants must be named in the charge). And in Tillman v. Boaz, 548 F.2d 592, 594 (5th Cir.1977), the Fifth Circuit pointed out that “[c]harges filed with the EEOC must be liberally construed because they are made by persons who are unfamiliar with the technicalities of formal pleadings and who usually do not have the assistance of an attorney.” Further, GTII has not been prejudiced by Babiker’s lack of sophistication in making his charge of discrimination with the EEOC because Cole is the president of both TMC and GTII and both companies are represented by the same counsel. Accordingly, GTII’s motion for summary judgment should be denied.

2

The EEOC’s attempts at conciliation with TMC failed.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons Defendant General Telemarketing International, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be Denied.
It is so ORDERED.
	
  
4

E.E.O.C. v. Teleservices Marketing Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006) 5

 </s> CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 1 of 14

CLOSED, JURY, STAGE2
U.S. District Court [LIVE] Eastern District of TEXAS LIVE (Sherman) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:04-cv-00075-PNB

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Teleservices Date Filed: 03/03/2004

Marketing Corporation

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Assigned to: Judge Paul N Brown

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Mediator Courtenay L Bass

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by David C Rivela Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - (San Antonio) 5410 Fredericksburg Rd, Ste 200 San Antonio, TX 78229 210-281-7619 Fax: 210-281-7669 Email: david.rivela@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Devika Seth Dubey U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 207 S Houston St Dallas, TX 75202 214-253-2764 Fax: 1214253-2749 Email: devika.seth@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keri Lyn Mallon EEOC 207 South Houston Street Dallas, TX 75202 214/253-2743 Fax: 12142532749 Email: keri.mallon@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 05/19/2006

Toby W Costas Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 207 S Houston St

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 2 of 14

V. Defendant Teleservices Marketing Corporation

3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 214/253-2760 Fax: 1214 253-2749 Email: toby.costas@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Grace Ann Weatherly Wood Thacker & Weatherly 400 West Oak Street Suite 310 Denton, TX 76201 940/565-6565 Fax: 19405666673 Email: grace@wtwlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Jack Burley Attorney at Law 200 North Travis Suite 310 Sherman, TX 75090 903/868-8000 Fax: 19038680005 Email: jeffburley@texoma.net TERMINATED: 10/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard William Wood Wood Thacker & Weatherly 400 West Oak Street Suite 310 Denton, TX 76201 940/565-6565 Fax: 19405666673 Email: bill@wtwlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sherry Lynn Shipman Wood Thacker & Weatherly 400 W. Oak Street Suite 310 Denton, TX 76201 940/565-6565

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 3 of 14

Defendant
General Telemarketing International, Inc.

Fax: 940/566-6673 Email: sherry@wtwlawfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Grace Ann Weatherly (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sherry Lynn Shipman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/03/2004
03/03/2004 06/07/2004
06/18/2004 06/23/2004 06/25/2004 06/25/2004 07/08/2004 07/28/2004

#

Docket Text

13 Case transferred in from Northern District of Texas Dallas Div; Case Number 3:03cv2227. Original file with documents numbered 1 - 12, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(ttm, ) (Entered: 03/05/2004)

Magistrate Consent Form and Notice of Case Assignment Mailed to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Teleservices Marketing Corporation (ttm, ) (Entered: 03/05/2004)

14 ORDER for Scheduling Conference set for 7/2/2004 10:00 AM in US Courthouse 101 E Pecan (Sherman) TX before Judge Paul N Brown.. Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 6/7/04. cc:attys on 6/9/04(ttm, ) (Entered: 06/09/2004)

15 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT by atty Richard Wood for Teleservices Marketing Corporation as to 14 Order (ttm, ) (Entered: 06/18/2004)

16 MOTION to Continue Scheduling Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (ttm, ) (Entered: 06/23/2004)

17 ORDER granting 16 Motion to Continue the Scheduling Conference until 7/28/04 at 1:30 pm. Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 6/24/04. cc: attys 6/28/04 (baf, ) (Entered: 06/28/2004)

Set/Reset Trial Management Order Deadlines: Status Conference set for 7/28/2004 01:30 PM in Ctrm 208 (Sherman) before Judge Paul N Brown. (baf, ) (Entered: 06/28/2004)

18 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT as to 17 Order on Motion to Continue by Richard Wood. (baf, ) (Entered: 07/08/2004)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul N Brown : Scheduling Conference held on 7/28/2004. (snh, ) (Entered: 07/28/2004)

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 4 of 14

07/30/2004
08/31/2004 09/30/2004 10/07/2004 10/26/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/29/2004 11/29/2004 11/29/2004 01/06/2005 01/21/2005

19 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/22/2005 09:00 AM in Ctrm 208 (Sherman) before Judge Paul N Brown. Amended Pleadings due by 8/31/2004 responses to amended pleadings due 15 days after service of amended pleading. Privilege logs to be exchanged by parties with written discovery responses. Discovery due by 1/31/2005. Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 11/5/2004. Joinder of Parties due by 10/1/2004. Jury instructions due by 7/19/2005 Jury Selection set for 8/1/2005 09:00 AM in US Courthouse 101 E Pecan (Sherman) TX before Judge Paul N Brown. Agreed name of mediator shall be furnished to the Court by 11/1/04. Mediation Completion due by 12/31/2004. Motions due by 4/1/2005. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 7/19/2005.. Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 7/29/04. cc:attys on 7/30/04(ttm, ) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
20 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Teleservices Marketing Corporation , filed by Teleservices Marketing Corporation.(ttm, ) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
21 MOTION to Amend/Correct by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Amended Complaint# 2 Exhibit Deposition# 3 Exhibit Charge# 4 Exhibit E-Mails# 5 Exhibit Company Documents)(Mallon, Keri) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
22 RESPONSE to Motion re 21 MOTION to Amend/Correct the Complaint to Add Defendant filed by Teleservices Marketing Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Part 1# 2 Affidavit Part 2)(Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
23 NOTICE of Change of Address by Grace Ann Weatherly (Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
24 STIPULATION Designator of Mediator by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mallon, Keri) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
25 STIPULATION Designation of Mediator by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mallon, Keri) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
26 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediator. Courtenay Bass added as Mediator. Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 10/29/04. Mediation conference shall be completedby December 31, 2004(sjs, ) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
27 REPORT of Mediation by Courtenay Bass. Mediation result: no settlement(Bass, Courtenay) (Entered: 11/29/2004)
28 REPORT of Mediation by Courtenay Bass. Mediation result: no settlement(Bass, Courtenay) (Entered: 11/29/2004)
29 MOTION to Quash Defendant's Deposition Upon Written Questions and Documents to be Produced by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena# 2 Exhibit Subpoena) (Mallon, Keri) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
30 RESPONSE in Opposition re 29 MOTION to Quash Defendant's

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 5 of 14

01/31/2005 02/04/2005 02/08/2005
02/15/2005 02/18/2005 02/24/2005 03/01/2005 03/04/2005 03/15/2005

Deposition Upon Written Questions and Documents to be Produced filed by Teleservices Marketing Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Donna Bradford)(Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
31 MOTION to Compel Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit)(Mallon, Keri) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
32 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses and Supporting Brief by Teleservices Marketing Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Text of Proposed Order Order on Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses)(Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
33 ORDER re 29 MOTION to Quash Defendant's Deposition Upon Written Questions and Documents to be Produced filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which exceeds five pages in length. Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's rule that a written courtesy copy of all pleadings exceeding five pages in length should be furnished to the Court. This motion will not be considered by the Court unless, on or before ten days from the date of this order, Plaintiff furnishes the Court a written copy of said pleading. Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 2/8/05. cc:attys on 2/8/05(ttm, ) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
34 RESPONSE in Opposition re 31 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Teleservices Marketing Corporation. (Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
35 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Toby W Costas on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Costas, Toby) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
36 RESPONSE in Opposition re 32 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses and Supporting Brief filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit)(Mallon, Keri) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
37 ORDER granting 21 Motion to Amend the complaint to add defendant . Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 3/1/05. cc:attys on 3/1/05 (ttm, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
38 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Teleservices Marketing Corporation, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Mallon, Keri) (Entered: 03/04/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul N Brown : Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 3/15/2005 re 31 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,, 32 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses and Supporting Brief filed by Teleservices Marketing Corporation,, 29 MOTION to Quash Defendant's Deposition Upon Written Questions and Documents to be Produced filed by Equal Employment Opportunity

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 6 of 14

03/15/2005 03/24/2005 03/24/2005 03/24/2005 03/24/2005 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 04/13/2005
04/14/2005 04/18/2005 04/18/2005

Commission,. (snh, ) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
39 ORDER denying 29 Motion to Quash, granting 31 Motion to Compel and denying 32 Motion to Compel . Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 3/15/05. cc:attys on 3/15/05 (ttm, ) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
40 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by General Telemarketing International, Inc..(Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 03/24/2005)
41 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Answer by Teleservices Marketing Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Weatherly, Grace) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/24/2005 (ttm, ). (Entered: 03/24/2005)
42 ***Document filed improperly, Proposed order is now attached to Motion #41*** Additional Attachments to Main Document: 41 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Answer.. (Weatherly, Grace) Modified on 3/24/2005 (ttm, ). (Entered: 03/24/2005)
***FILED IN ERROR. Document # 42, Proposed Order. PLEASE IGNORE. This order has been attached to Motion #41***
(ttm, ) (Entered: 03/24/2005)
43 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Teleservices Marketing Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Weatherly, Grace) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2005 (ttm, ). (Entered: 04/01/2005)
44 MOTION for Summary Judgment by General Telemarketing International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Weatherly, Grace) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/4/2005 (ttm, ). (Entered: 04/01/2005)
45 NOTICE of Disclosure by General Telemarketing International, Inc. (Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
46 ORDER granting 41 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Answer. IT IS ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that Dft Teleservices Marketing Corporation's Second Amended Answer be deemed filed as of the date of its receipt by the Clerk of the Court. Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 04/13/05. (lhj, ) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
47 SECOND AMENDED ANSWER by Teleservices Marketing Corporation. (lhj, ) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
48 RESPONSE in Opposition re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit)(Francis, Ronetta) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
49 ***Deficient document, REPLACED BY DOCUMENT #50*** RESPONSE to Motion re 43 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 7 of 14

04/18/2005 04/20/2005
04/22/2005 04/28/2005 04/28/2005 04/29/2005
04/29/2005 04/29/2005 05/02/2005 05/02/2005 05/06/2005

# 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit) (Mallon, Keri) Modified on 4/20/2005 (ttm, ). (Entered: 04/18/2005)
50 RESPONSE in Opposition re 43 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit)(Mallon, Keri) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
***FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE IGNORE Document # 49, Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. REPLACED BY DOCUMENT #50.***
(ttm, ) (Entered: 04/20/2005)
51 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Sherry Lynn Shipman on behalf of Teleservices Marketing Corporation, General Telemarketing International, Inc. (Shipman, Sherry) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
52 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by General Telemarketing International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
53 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Teleservices Marketing Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
54 RESPONSE in Opposition re 52 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, 53 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mallon, Keri) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
55 ORDER granting 52 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment Replies due by 5/2/2005.. Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 4/29/05. cc:attys on 4/29/05 (ttm, ) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
56 ORDER granting 53 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 43 MOTION for Summary Judgment Replies due by 5/2/2005.. Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 4/29/05. cc:attys on 4/29/05 (ttm, ) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
57 REPLY to Response to Motion re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by General Telemarketing International, Inc.. (Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
58 REPLY to Response to Motion re 43 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Teleservices Marketing Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Grace Weatherly)(Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
59 RESPONSE to 58 Reply to Response to Motion #58 Surreply by Equal

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 8 of 14

07/05/2005
07/13/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/15/2005
07/15/2005

Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Shana Gentle)(Mallon, Keri) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
60 ORDER re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by General Telemarketing International, Inc.,. The Court will consider this motion as a motion for sum jgm and will decide the motion on or after 7/18/2005. Each party may submit any supplemental sum jgm evidence in support or in opposition to the motion that it desires the Court to consider on or before 7/18/2005. Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 7/5/2005. (baf, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
61 NOTICE by Teleservices Marketing Corporation, General Telemarketing International, Inc. of Objections to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits (Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
62 ***DEFICIENT DOCUMENT, to be refiled*** MOTION to Stay by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4)(Mallon, Keri) Modified on 7/14/2005 (ttm, ). (Entered: 07/14/2005)
***FILED IN ERROR. Document # 62, Motion to Stay Proceedings. PLEASE IGNORE. To be refiled with attorney's signature***
(ttm, ) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
63 ***Deficient Document, to be refiled with motion attached*** MOTION to Stay by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Mallon, Keri) Modified on 7/14/2005 (ttm, ). (Entered: 07/14/2005)
***FILED IN ERROR. Document # 63, Motion to stay proceedings. PLEASE IGNORE. To be refiled with motion attached***
(ttm, ) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
64 MOTION to Stay by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Mallon, Keri) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
65 ORDER granting in part 64 Motion to Stay. The Court orders the following new deadlines: Proposed Joint Pretrial Order, Motions in limine, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions, Form of Verdict and any Trial Briefs shall be submitted by 12/19/05. Final Pretrial Conference at 9:00 am on 12/22/05. Jury Selection and/or trial at 9:00 am on 1/4/06 to be tried when reached. Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 7/15/05. cc:attys on 7/15/05 (ttm, ) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/22/2005 09:00 AM in Ctrm 208 (Sherman) before Judge Paul N Brown. Jury instructions due by 12/19/2005 Jury Selection set for 1/4/2006 09:00 AM in Ctrm 208 (Sherman) before Judge Paul N Brown. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 12/19/2005. (ttm, ) (Entered: 07/15/2005)

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 9 of 14

07/18/2005 12/02/2005 12/12/2005
12/12/2005 12/14/2005 12/16/2005 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/09/2006 01/24/2006

66 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Objections to Defendants' Pretrial Disclosures (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit deposition) (Mallon, Keri) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
67 MOTION to Continue Jury Trial by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Costas, Toby) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
68 ORDER granting 67 Motion to Continue Jury Trial, the court orders the following new deadlines: Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order, Motions in limine, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions, Form of Verdict and any Trial Briefs shall be submitted by 5/16/06. Final Pretrial Conference will be held at 9:00 am on 5/19/06, Jury Selection will begin at 9:00 am on 6/5/06, case to be tried when reached . Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 12/12/05. (ttm, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/19/2006 09:00 AM before Judge Paul N Brown. Jury instructions due by 5/16/2006 Jury Selection set for 6/5/2006 09:00AM before Judge Paul N Brown. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 5/16/2006. (ttm, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
69 ORDER denying 44 Dft Teleservices Marketing Corp's Motion for Summary Judgment . Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 12/14/05. (ttm, ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
70 ORDER for further Briefing on Gen Telemarketing's Motion for summary judgment, additional briefing shall be filed on or before 1/3/06. Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 12/16/05. (ttm, ) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
71 TRIAL BRIEF ON INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE THEORY by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1a# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1b# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 5)(Costas, Toby) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
72 TRIAL BRIEF in Support of Defendant General Telemarketing International, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment by General Telemarketing International, Inc.. (Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
73 MOTION to Amend/Correct 38 Amended Complaint SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Second Complaint# 2 Text of Proposed Order PROPOSED ORER FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT)(Costas, Toby) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
74 RESPONSE in Opposition re 73 MOTION to Amend/Correct 38 Amended Complaint SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Teleservices Marketing Corporation, General Telemarketing International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 10 of 14

01/30/2006
01/30/2006 02/08/2006 05/02/2006
05/11/2006 05/12/2006 05/12/2006 05/16/2006 05/16/2006 05/16/2006 05/16/2006

75 ***DEFICIENT DOCUMENT, PLEASE IGNORE, EXCEEDS PAGE LIMIT***
REPLY to Response to Motion re 73 MOTION to Amend/Correct 38 Amended Complaint SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Excerpts Oral Deposition of Michael Cole)(Costas, Toby) Modified on 1/30/2006 (ttm, ). (Entered: 01/30/2006)
76 REPLY to Response to Motion re 73 MOTION to Amend/Correct 38 Amended Complaint SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Costas, Toby) Modified on 2/3/2006 (ttm, ). ***This document REPLACES #75*** (Entered: 01/30/2006)
77 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION and ORDER DENYING General Telemarketing Intl Inc' motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Paul N Brown on 2/8/06. (ttm, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
78 ORDER, the court anticipates setting time limits for each party to present its case. It is Ordered that by 5/12/06 at 4:00 pm, the parties shall each submit to the court an estimate of the time that party needs to complete the presentation of testimony in this case. The required statements should not be filed with the clerk, but should be submitted only to the court. The court intends to notify the parties of the total time each is alloted by 5/16/06. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 4/28/06. (ttm, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
79 ORDER denying 73 Motion to file second amended complaint. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 5/11/06. (ttm, ) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
80 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Keri L. Mallon by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Costas, Toby) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
81 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Devika Seth Dubey on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Dubey, Devika) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
82 MOTION in Limine and Supporting Brief by Teleservices Marketing Corporation, General Telemarketing International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order on Motion in Limine)(Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
83 Proposed Jury Instructions by Teleservices Marketing Corporation, General Telemarketing International, Inc.. (Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
84 Proposed Voir Dire by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Costas, Toby) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
85 MOTION in Limine by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order-Motion In Limine)

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 11 of 14

05/16/2006 05/16/2006 05/16/2006 05/16/2006
05/16/2006 05/17/2006 05/18/2006 05/19/2006 05/19/2006 05/25/2006 05/26/2006 05/30/2006

(Costas, Toby) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
86 Proposed Jury Instructions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Costas, Toby) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
87 Proposed Pretrial Order Joint Final Pre-Trial Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiff's Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit Defendants' Exhibit List)(Costas, Toby) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
88 Proposed Jury Instructions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Costas, Toby) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
89 ***FILED IN ERROR. Atty notified to refile in paper form with original signatures, PLEASE IGNORE.***
NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Notice, Consent & Order of Reference Exercise Jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate Judge (Costas, Toby) Modified on 5/17/2006 (dlc, ). (Entered: 05/16/2006)
***FILED IN ERROR. Document # 89, Atty notified to refile in paper form with original signatures. PLEASE IGNORE.*** (dlc, ) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
90 NOTICE of Hearing: Final Pretrial Conference set for Friday, 5/19/2006 09:00 AM in Video Conferencing Room (Sherman Annex) before Judge Ron Clark. (snh, ) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
91 ORDER on Limitations of Trial Time, the court now allocates 5.5 hours to Pltf and 5.5 hours to the Dft, in which to present their respective cases . Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 5/17/06. (ttm, ) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
92 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ron Clark : Final Pretrial Conference held on 5/19/2006. (Court Reporter Dave Maxwell.) (snh, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
93 ORDER granting 80 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Keri Lyn Mallon terminated . Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 5/19/06. (ttm, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
94 JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 5/19/06. (ttm, ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
95 RESPONSE to 87 Proposed Pretrial Order, 94 Pretrial Order Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits by Teleservices Marketing Corporation, General Telemarketing International, Inc.. (Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
96 RESPONSE to 87 Proposed Pretrial Order, 94 Pretrial Order Objections to Plaintiff's Pretrial Deposition Designations by Teleservices Marketing Corporation, General Telemarketing International, Inc.. (Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 12 of 14

05/30/2006 06/12/2006
06/12/2006
06/14/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006 07/25/2006 07/25/2006 07/25/2006 07/25/2006

97 Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Exhibits and Deposition Designations by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1)(Costas, Toby) Modified on 5/31/2006 (dlc, ). (Entered: 05/30/2006)
98 ***DEFICIENT DOCUMENT, ATTORNEY MUST REFILE***
NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by David C Rivela on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rivela, David) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
99 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by David C Rivela on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rivela, David) Modified on 6/13/2006 (ttm, ) ***CORRECTED DOCUMENT REPLACES DOCUMENT #98 WHICH WAS DEFICIENT***
(Entered: 06/12/2006)
100 NOTICE of Hearing: Jury Selection / Trial rescheduled for Monday 7/24/2006 09:00 AM in Ctrm 208 (Sherman) before Judge Ron Clark. (snh, ) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
101 Proposed Jury Instructions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Costas, Toby) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ron Clark : Voir Dire held on 7/24/2006. (Court Reporter Bryn & Associates.) (snh, ) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ron Clark : Jury Selection held on 7/25/2006. (Court Reporter Bryn & Associates.) (snh, ) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
Jury Impaneled. (snh, ) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
104 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ron Clark : Jury Trial day 1 held on 7/24/2006. (Court Reporter Bryn & Associates.) (snh, ) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
102 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law by Teleservices Marketing Corporation, and General Telemarketing International, Inc. (ttm, ) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
103 RESPONSE to 102 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (ttm, ) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
105 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ron Clark : Jury Trial day 2 completed on 7/25/2006. (Court Reporter Bryn & Associates.) (snh, ) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
106 Exhibit List/Witness List by Teleservices Marketing Corporation, General Telemarketing International, Inc... (snh, ) (Entered: 07/26/2006)

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 13 of 14

07/25/2006 07/25/2006 07/25/2006 08/02/2006
08/11/2006
08/14/2006 08/15/2006
08/16/2006 08/16/2006
08/28/2006 08/28/2006

107 Exhibit & Witness List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (snh, ) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
108 Jury Instructions of Court. (snh, ) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
109 JURY VERDICT (finding for defendant). (snh, ) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
110 FINAL JUDGMENT, it is Ordered and Adjudged that the Pltf take nothing, that the action be dismissed on the merits, and that the Dfts Teleservices Marketing Corporation and General Telemarketing International Inc recover of the Pltf EEOC its costs of action. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 7/26/06. (ttm, ) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
111 BILL OF COSTS by Teleservices Marketing Corporation, General Telemarketing International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 1-A# 3 Exhibit 1-B# 4 Exhibit 1-C# 5 Exhibit 1-D# 6 Exhibit 1-E# 7 Exhibit 1-F# 8 Exhibit 1-G# 9 Exhibit 1-H# 10 Errata 1-I# 11 Exhibit 1J# 12 Exhibit 1-K# 13 Exhibit 1-L# 14 Exhibit 1-M# 15 Exhibit 1-N# 16 Exhibit 1-O# 17 Exhibit 1-P# 18 Exhibit 1-Q# 19 Exhibit 1-R# 20 Exhibit 1-S# 21 Exhibit 1-T# 22 Exhibit 1-U# 23 Exhibit 1-V# 24 Exhibit 1-W# 25 Exhibit 1-X# 26 Exhibit 1-Y# 27 Exhibit 1-Z# 28 Exhibit 1-AA# 29 Exhibit 1-BB# 30 Exhibit 1-CC# 31 Exhibit 1-DD# 32 Exhibit 1-EE# 33 Exhibit 1-FF# 34 Exhibit 1-GG# 35 Exhibit 1-HH) (Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
112 BILL OF COSTS issued. (ttm, ) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
113 ***DEFICIENT DOCUMENT, ATTORNEY MUST REFILE***
BILL OF COSTS PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND MOTION FOR REVIEW by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Costas, Toby) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/16/2006 (fnt, ). Modified on 8/16/2006 (ttm, ). (Entered: 08/15/2006)
NOTICE of Deficiency regarding the Bill of Costs #113 submitted, document is not docketed as a Motion. Correction should be made by one business day (ttm, ) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
114 MOTION for Review of Bill of Costs and Objections by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Costas, Toby) Modified on 8/16/2006 (ttm, ) ***CORRECTED DOCUMENT REPLACES DOCUMENT #113***
(Entered: 08/16/2006)
115 RESPONSE to Motion re 114 MOTION for Review of Bill of Costs filed by Teleservices Marketing Corporation, General Telemarketing International, Inc. (Weatherly, Grace) Proposed order added on 8/28/2006 (ttm, ). (Entered: 08/28/2006)
116 RESPONSE to Motion re 114 MOTION for Review of Bill of Costs Plaintiff's Objections and Motion for Review Proposed Order on Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Bill of Costs and Motion for Review

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

Page 14 of 14

09/05/2006 10/24/2006

filed by Teleservices Marketing Corporation. (Weatherly, Grace) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
117 REPLY to Response to Motion re 114 MOTION for Review of Bill of Costs Plaintiff's Objections and Motion for Review filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Costas, Toby) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
118 ORDER re 114 Objections to Bill of Costs, the Court finds the total amount Dfts are entitled to recover on their Bill of Costs as prevailing parties is $871.30 . Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 10/23/06. (ttm, ) (Entered: 10/24/2006)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

06/12/2007 11:49:08

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 4:04-cv-00075-PNB

Billable Pages: 8

Cost:

0.64

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?251118440980165-L_923_0-1

6/12/2007


[CONTENT] the U.S. District | the Northern District | Texas | Dallas | EEOC | Teleservices Marketing Corporation | Telemarketing International | the U.S. District Court | the Eastern District | Texas | March 2004 ||| Title VII of the Civil Rights Act | 1964 ||| Sudanese ||| October 2004 ||| Motions ||| July 24, 2005 | July 25, 2006 ||| EEOC | Court | 871.30 [SUMMARY] Originally filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of Texas, the Dallas office of the EEOC transferred this case against Teleservices Marketing Corporation and General Telemarketing International, Inc. to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in March 2004. The amended complaint alleged discrimination based on national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More specifically, the claimant alleged the defendants terminated his employment because of his national origin, Sudanese. While the case was referred to a mediator in October 2004, the parties were unable to reach an agreement and discovery continued with some disputes. The defendants both filed Motions for Summary Judgment which were denied. The jury trial commenced on July 24, 2005; the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on July 25, 2006. The judge additionally ordered the defendants to recover its costs of action from the EEOC, which after a dispute between the parties, the Court determined to be $871.30.

