USDC SCAN INDEX SHEET Case 3:02-cv-01908-W-RBB Document 1 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 1 of 6

JPP 9/24/02 3:02-CV-01908 *1* *CMP.*

13:58 EEOC V. BAZAAR DEL MUNDO INC

• Case 3:02-cv-01908-W-RBB

Document 1

•Filed 09/24/2002

Page 2 of 6

1 ANNA Y. PARK, State Bar No. 164242 PETER F. LAURA, State Bar No. 116426
2 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
3 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012

FI LED
02 SEP 24 AM U: 00

~f(Y)t((

'I'I" C ERK. u.s. DISTRICT COUllT

v

SQ THE

T T OF CALIFORNIA

4 Telephone: (213) 894-1076

Facsimile: (213) 894-1301

5

Attorneys for Plaintiff

6 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I

CASE NO. '02 CV 01908 Vi (RBB)

COMPLAINT - CIVIL RIGHTS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINAnON (42 U.S.c. Section 2000e, et .wl.; 42 U.S.c. Section 1981a)

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

17

NATURE OF THE CASE

18

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

19 Rights Act of 1991 to correct intentional and unlawful employment practices on the basis ofrace,

20 and to make whole Trina Akins and similarly situated Black applicants who applied for

21 employment with Bazaar Del Mundo, Inc., ("BDM"), as service workers, who were adversely

22 affected by such practices.

23

As described in greater particularity below, the Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment

24 Opportunity Commission ("Commission" or "EEOC") alleges that BDM discriminated against

25 Trina Akins and similarly situated Black applicants by failing to hire them because of their race,

26 Black.

27

In addition, the Commission alleges that Defendant has engaged in and continues to

1""" ,0 "'"g' 28

i, reoruitm",' ,,,,,tio,, whioh di~rimiru"'"

'",ti,' BI~k 'P'Ii""" r"

~

1

• Case 3:02-cv-01908-W-RBB

.'
Document 1

•Filed 09/24/2002

Page 3 of 6

1 employment. These recruitment practices include "word of mouth" hiring. As a result of these

2 practices, Blacks have been denied equal employment opportunities.

3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4

1. Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 451,1331,1337,

5 1343 and !345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(J) and (3) and

6 707 ofTitie VII, 42 US.C. Sections 2000e-S(f)(!) and (3) and 2000e-6, and Title I of the Civil

7 Rights Act of 1991, 42 US.C. Section 1981a.

8

2. The unlawful employment practices alleged herein were committed within the

9 jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

10

PARTIES

II

3. The EEOC is an agency of the United States of America charged with the

12 administration, interpretation and enforcement ofTitle VII and is expressly authorized to bring

13 this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) and 707(e) ofTitle VII, 42 US.c. Sections 2000e-

14 5(f)(1) and (3) and 2000e-6(e).

15

4. At all relevant times until at least July 1, 1998, BDM was and is a California

16 corporation continuously doing business in the Southern District of California, and continuously

17 had fifteen or more employees.

18

5. At all relevant times until at least July I, 1998, BDM continuously was an employer

19 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of

20 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

21

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

22

6. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit Trina Akins filed a

23 charge with the Commission alleging that BDM violated Title VII.

24

7. Prior to institution of this lawsuit, all conditions precedent were satisfied. The

25 Commission's representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices

26 hereinafter alleged and to affect voluntary compliance with the Act through informal methods of

27 conciliation, conference and persuasion within the meaning of Section 706(b) and 707(e) of Title

28 VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-5(b) and -6(e).

2

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

• Case 3:02-cv-01908-W-RBB

Document 1

•Filed 09/24/2002

Page 4 of 6

1

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

2

II. Since at least July I, 1998, BDM has engaged in unlawful employment practices in

3 violation of Sections 703(a)(1) and 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-3 and 2000e-6. 4 These violations include failing to hire Trina Akins and similarly situated Black applicants not 5 hired by BDM because of their race, Black.

6

12. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Trina Akins

7 and other similarly situated Black applicants for service worker positions of equal employment 8 opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect their employment status because of their race.

9

13. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts ofBDM Trina Akins and

10 similarly situated Black applicants have suffered emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation

11 and related damages in an amount according to proof.

12

14. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts ofBDM, Trina Akins and

13 similarly situated Black applicants have suffered a loss of eamings in an amount according to

14 proof.

IS

15. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are intentional

16 within the meaning of the 1991 Civil Rights Act.

17

16. BDM has acted with malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights of

18 Trina Akins and similarly situated Black applicants.

19

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

20

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

21

A. Grant declaratory relief that BDM has violated Title VII by discriminating in hiring

22 because of race.

23

B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining BDM, its officers, successors, assigns and

24 all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practices

25 which discriminate on the basis of race or retaliate against employees for engaging in activity

26 protected under Title VII. 27 III 28 III

3

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

'.

• Case 3:02-cv-01908-W-RBB

,~'"

'j

Document 1

•Filed 09/24/2002

Page 5 of 6

1

C. Order BDM to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which

2 provide equal employment opportunities for Blacks and which eradicate the effects of past and

3 present unlawful employment practices.

4

D. Grant a judgment requiring BDM to make Trina Akins and similarly situated Black

5 applicants whole by paying to them appropriate back pay, interest, lost benefits, rightful place

6 employment and compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

7

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

8 interest.

9

F. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

10

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

11

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions offact raised by Complaint.

12

13

Respectfully submitted,

14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Date: 22

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel ANNA Y.PARK Regional Attorney PETERF. LAURA Senior Trial Attorney
~ Attorneys for Plaintiff

23

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

24

Commission

Los Angeles District Office

25

255 East Temple St., 4th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90012

26

(213) 894-1080

27

28
S:ILegaJ UnitIBDMlpJeadingslcompJaint.wpd

4

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Case 3:02-cv-01908-W-RBB Document 1 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 6 of 6

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JSM civil cover shc:tt and lhe information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, exceplllll provided by local

P'f1"""EitiJfl'l'l rules of court. This form. approved by the: Judicial Conference of the United StalMin September 1974, is required for rho usc of the C1erlc. orcou~t1 L... U ,heet (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE SECOND PAGE OF TIflS FORM.)

the civil dock

I (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

U.S. Equal Employment

Bazaar Del Mundo ,oa~~ 2~~H Q,' 01

(b)

Opportunity
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF

Commi
FIRST LISTED

ssion
___

_

_

_

_--1CODUNOTEYSOFR1EStIhDrEoNCuEgOhFFl5R5"SlTEL~~lInS(r'Tvl~:S>t.T1RI~~CTCfiC1O.U.ljlTf~

PLAINTIFF

(IN u.s, PLAINTIFF CASES ONLy)

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

Wlll:,Y NINOVTOEL, VINEDLAND CONDEMNATION CASES. 41I111iE tOCATION OF THE TRACT'{,....,

(e) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)

ATiORN[YS~FKNO~

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
t6~ ~R~l~g~PtA 90012 t , 4th F

Belle C. Mason Silver & Freedman tg~9A~~R~~¥,P~~K90657' 19th Floor

n. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (PLACE oW llN ONE BOX ONLy)

~u.s. Government Plaintiff
o2U.S: Government Defendant

o3Federal Question
(U,S. Oovenunent Not" patty)
o4Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in
Item III

111. ClTlZENSHlP OF PRINCIPAL PARTffiS (PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX

(For Dlvenlty Casu Only)

FOR PLAINTIrr AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT

Citizen of This State:

PT DEF

. PI DEF

D. D. 0, 0, lncorporated or Principal Place of Business in This State

Citizen of Another State

Os Os Incorponlted and Prino;ipal Place of Buslnm
in Another State:

Citizen or Subject of.ll; Fottign Country

Foreign Nation

06 06

lV, CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE TilE US CIVIL 5TATUTE VNDER WIllen VOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE. DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL 5TATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY).

Employment Discrimination Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e

v NATUREOFSVrr (pLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY)

CONTRACT

oIIOln$uttl>Ct o o L20Marint oLlO MiLkt Act o o 140 Ntiooablt IntlfUItICnI oI~OR~ofCM:rp.a~
A&ion:ctnmI of Jlidgmmt

o o 131 Medic...., Mt

o ~ IS2

of De-fawtrd Swclent

LoIIlJ !E\cl. VeIcmls)

o bHClM(ll4tVehM:I~ oo l"Reeo~orOwrpll)lllletlt

Orv&fWlt a_cIU
o ~ o 160 Stoc1Mldtl1 SuiIJ

...,
, .'

R b o--. 190OtherConflict

TonTS

Pf;RSONAl..lI'IJlJ"V

P£R.SOI'IAL INJURV

JlOAirplme lIS Airplmc: I'~ Uability ]20 AssIUlI, libel &. Slander )30 f«l«lol EInpl~' U...bility
}40 Marine )4S Mlrihe Product \.ilbiLil)'
. lH MOCOf Vdlidll Product IbbilJty
360 0tlI« 1'tf1011ti InjIllY

)62l'momll1ljwy, Medical Malpndi~
36$ PmonaIlnjury • I'trJdutt Liabilily
168 Albesiut I'f:nonaIlnjury Product U.bility
PERSONAl. tkOI'£RTV
)10 C\Iber FnwJ
l7lTluth ill UMiJIi
380 Otha- PcnonIl

~ liS

Damtse

f>fod\Jd; UabiUty

1UtAL1"ROl"ERTY
g21t1YMC<.JOdc:mnation
onQ forwlowtll
ono R.cnl Lwt &; Eimrnmt o24(lTorttoLind o24~ Tort I'rodUl:I Liabilily o~91) AU OIher Real ~

CIVll..lUGHTS
!:Z: V~U& •
. lEnlf1\o~ 4411l0ll$indAtOOlllllllXbliom 444 Welfare 440 Other Civillli£hu

,RJSONEIt rnlTIONS
n~!OMotioo.I:toVJ~~
....... C"""
noClellaal
m Death Penalty
~ 540 hhadamua .t 0IJIa$jO Ci.,"U.il\bll .

F()UflTUJU'l~Ef'/ALT\'
610 AgriOlllurc
620 e'lllct Food dt Drug
62.S Drug Related Selt'lll'C ofl"wpel1ylllJSCUl
~ '" ""', Lo.. 640 R!t &: Truck
6S()NrLillC~
6/iO ~iooaI SlfctylHtllIII
I ,~~••
LABOR
~ ,,,,,, ....b« '."d."loA"
~ 120 ubodMpnL Rf;b.Ii(JllJ
no UbndM&mL ~,.
Dbl:'-" Act
140 fWl...,.1..aIJof NIl 19(1 0Ihef \.ll1u Utiptioq
791~lRet.IJte .
"""",Ad

lIANKRUPTCY
H421 Appnol28 USC 138
." w,,' .,," '"
'ROrtRtv JuCtiTS
820 Copyri,hfS 830 html.
I "or"
SOCIAL SfCURlTV
861 UIA (139$8) 862 B11C1: WI, (923) 86] DIWCI01WW (405(,))
~ S64 ssm Title XVI
f!OERA.L TAX SUITS
P870TUcI(U.s.l'Ia.inliff or DcflladMd)
~ 871111.$, TbirdrNfy 26 USC 1609

OTIIl1:RSTATUTES
4(l(1 Slate K~PrOintm'll'lt
41(lAnlinUSi
430 Ilanb ~ Il*'l~n. 450 «(If'I'In\C'IlleI'ICC R.1oh:$l~. 460 Oeponation 47{1 lUct:eli:er banuenccd IItId
C~OrgllnitM:ioN
~ ." S,""~"""" SSO Secumies.lalmmoditits '-' 875 C.ut6mer ClaUo!fIgt' 11 USC a91 Apicvltvn.l AI;tJ 892 Ewoomk: Stabiliz:ltion Act 1193 Eovironmcalal Mal\cQ 894 EIIelgy AUdOll Act 89S fretlOOm of InIinmIliM Act 900 Appeal orFee De\ernUnati(Jrn Undc:r Equa! A<:tUI \(\ Jlllti~c
~ '""""''''om'',or"'. 190 Otbcr SuMO!)' ActiOlll

VI. ORIGIN (PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLy)

>En Procee~'ing 0 0 04 0 Original

2 Removal from 3 Remanded from Appelaie

Reinstated Qr S Transferred from

o o 6 Multidtstrict Litigation

1 Appeal 10 District 1udge from

State Court

Court

Reopened

VII. REQUESTED I.N COMrLAINT:

oCHECK IF THIS IS ACLASS ArnON

UN"DER [r.c.p_ 23

another district (specify) DEMAND S

MagislT4re Judgment
Check YES only ifd!:l'nal1ded in complaint:
0 JURY DEMAND'~ YES NO

RECORD~'_ S.GNATlJREOF ATIORNEVOF

"ODMAIPCDOCSIWORDPERFECl\2281611 January 24. 2000 (3:10pm)

 </s> Case 3:02-cv-01U9S0D8C-WSC-RABNB INDDEoXcuSmHeEnEtT15 Filed 08/05/2003 Page 1 of 13

11111 III II

BJR 8/6/03 3:02-CV-01908 *15* *STIPO.*

15:40 EEOC V. BAZAAR DEL MUNDO INC

Case 3:02-cv-01908-W-RBB Document 15
· "'. JANNA Y. PARK, SBN 164242 ~. ' " PETER F. LAURA, SBN 116421
" ! 2 CONNIE LIEM, TX SBN 791113
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 3 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor 4 Los Angeles, CA 90012
Tele~hone: (213) 894-1076 5 Facs1illile: (213) 894-1301

ORIGINAL Filed 08/05/2003 Page 2 of 13
03 AUG -5 PM 2: 3~

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

ev;

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

7 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

DEPUTY

8 BELLE C. MASON, SBN 86981
9 BARRY M. APPELL, SBN 174324
SILVER & FREEDMAN, PLC 10 2029 Century Park East, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2722 11 Telephone: (310) 556-2356
Facsimile: (310) 556-0832
12
Attorneys for Defendant
13 BAZAAR DEL MUNDO, INC.

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16

17

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

18 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

19

Plaintiff,

)

)

20 v.

)

)

21 BAZAAR DEL MUNDO, INC., a )

California corporation;

)

22 and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, )

)

23

Defendants.

)

)

24

/
CASE NO. 02 CV 01908 W (RBB) CONSENT DECREE

25 II

26 II

27 II

28 II

EN1EREDON~

15

AUG 0 1 2003

Case 3:02-cv-01908-W-RBB Document 15 I.Filed 08/05/2003 Page 3 of 13

THE LITIGATION

In this action fIled by Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity

4 Commission (the "Commission" or "EEOC"), the Commission alleged that

5 Defendant, Bazaar Del Mundo, Inc., ("BDM") violated Title VII of the Civil Rights

6 Act of 1964, as amended, by failing to hire Trina Akins and other similarly situated

7 job applicants because of their race, African-American.

8

BDM denies that it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

9 amended. BDM contends that it hires all employees on the basis of job qualifications

10 only and does not discriminate against any protected group.

11

As a result of their having engaged in settlement negotiations, the Commission

12 and BDM have resolved their differences and have agreed that this action should be

13 finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree.

14

II.

15

FINDINGS

16

Having examined the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree and based on

17 the pleadings, record and stipulations of the parties, the Court fmds the following:

18

A. The Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the

19

parties;

20

B. The terms and provisions of this Consent Decree are adequate, fair

21

reasonable, equitable and just. The rights of BDM, the Commission and

22

those for whom the Commission seeks relief are protected adequately by

23

this Consent Decree;

24

C. This Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil

25

Procedure and Title VII, and is not in derogation of the rights and

26

privileges of any person.

27

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED

28 THAT:

2

, '.Ca1se 3:02-cv-01908-W-RBB Document 15 IIIF. iled 08/05/2003 Page 4 of 13

2

EFFECT OF DECREE

3

This Consent Decree resolves all issues and claims arising out of the Complaint

4 filed by the EEOC herein alleging unlawful employment practices by BDM in

5 violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and this Consent

6 Decree shall be binding and fInal as to all such issues and claims.

7

This Consent Decree does not constitute an adjudication by this Court on the

8 merits of the allegations of the EEOC's Complaint. Neither the agreement to enter

9 into this Consent Decree nor any provisions herein constitute any admission

10 whatsoever by either party as to the claims or defenses of the other.

11

This Consent Decree in no way affects the EEOC's rights to process charges

12 against BDM not otherwise covered by this Consent Decree in accordance with

13 standard EEOC procedures and to commence civil action on any such charges.

14

IV.

15

MONETARY RELIEF

16

BDM agrees to pay an aggregate amount of One Hundred Twenty Thousand

17 Dollars ($120,OOO.OO)(the "Settlement Amount") to resolve this lawsuit as follows.

18 Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Decree, EEOC shall mail to Charging Party

19 and each claimant a letter informing them of the resolution of this suit and a release

20 agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Charging Party and each

21 claimant shall have twenty one (21) days from the date of their receipt of the release

22 agreement to return to the EEOC the executed release agreement. Upon receipt of the

23 executed release agreements from the Charging Party and the claimants, EEOC will

24 forward the executed release agreements to BDM. Within fifteen days of its receipt of

25 the executed releases, BDM shall mail, via certified mail, checks payable to the

26 Charging Party and claimants in amounts determined by the EEOC. A copy of the

27 checks and accompanying transmittal papers shall be contemporaneously forwarded to

28 the attention of the Regional Attorney, US EEOC, 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor,

3

C1aseL3o:0s2A-cnvg-e0l1es9,0C8-AW9-R00B1B2. Document 15 Filed 08/05/2003 Page 5 of 13

2

Any of the Settlement Amount which is not distributed to the Charging Party

3 and claimants will be donated by BDM to a mutually agreed upon non-profit

4 organization benefitting African American job seekers.

5

~

6

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

7

BDM and its officers, agents, employees, successors and assigns, and all of

8 those in active concert or participation with them, or any of them, are enjoined from

9 engaging in any hiring practice which discriminates against African-Americans.

10

VI.

11

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CONSULTANT

12

Within sixty (60) days of the date of entry of this Consent Decree and for a

13 period of three (3) years from the date of entry of the Consent Decree, BDM shall

14 retain an Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant ("Consultant") with

15 demonstrated experience in the area of employment discrimination and sexual 16 harassment issues to implement and monitor BDM's compliance with Title VII and

17 with the provisions of this Consent Decree. The Consultant shall be subject to the 18 Commission's approval, which will not be unreasonably withheld. If the Commission

19 does not approve BDM's proposed consultant, the Commission shall provide BDM 20 with a Jist of at least three suggested candidates acceptable to the Commission. If 21 BDM is not in agreement with those suggested candidates, BDM and the Commission 22 shall attempt for 15 days to reach agreement on the identity of a consultant. If they

23 are not able to do so in that time frame, a consultant will be appointed by the Court

24 from the respective lists (of not more than two candidates each) submitted by each

25 party

26

The EEO Consultant's responsibilities shall include the development of

27 recruiting, screening, and hiring procedures, assisting in training BDM's supervisory

28 employees, assisting in the auditing procedures set forth in Section X(A) of this

4

C1aseC3o:0n2se-cnvt-D01e9cr0e8e-,Wa-nRdBeBnsuriDngoccuommepnlita1n5ce wFitihletdhi0s8C/0o5n/s2e0n0t3DecrPeaeg. e 6 of 13

2

Any proposed changes in the designation of the EEO Consultant shall be

3 communicated to the EEOC in writing, within thirty (30) days of such designation, as

4 follows: BDM shall submit the name and credentials of the proposed Consultant to

5 the EEOC's Los Angeles District Office Regional Attorney for approval. If the 6 Regional Attorney does not approve the person proposed, she shall provide BDM with

7 a list of three acceptable candidates, from which list BDM shall select the EEO 8 Consultant. Subsequent replacement of the EEO Consultant requires the Regional

9 Attorney's approval, as set forth, above.

10

VII.

11

POSTING OF NOTICE

12

Within ten (10) business days of the entry of this Consent Decree, BDM shall

13 give a copy of the Notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each employee then employed by 14 BDM. At the same time, BDM shall conspicuously post a copy of the Notice at an 15 agreed upon location readily accessible to and commonly frequented by BDM's

16 employees. The Notice shall remain posted during the term of this Consent Decree. 17 BDM shall certify to the EEOC within twenty (20) business days of the entry of this 18 Consent Decree that the Notice has been properly distributed and posted.

19

VIII.

20

TRAINING PROGRAM

21

A minimum of four (4) hours of training on equal employment laws will be

22 provided at least once per year to all of BDM' s supervisory employees over the term

23 of this Consent Decree. The trainings shall be monitored by the EEO Consultant.

24 Such training shall accurately and completely advise the BDM's supervisors of laws 25 and regulations concerning the prohibitions against discrimination with specific and 26 practical emphasis on applying such legal requirements within BDM's business 27 environment.

28

Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, BDM shall rctain a

5

.. .C1aseT3r:a0i2n-ecrvw-0i1th90d8em-Wo-nRstBraBted eDxopceurimenecnet i1n5trainFiinlegdi0n8t/h0e5a/2re0a03of emPpalgoeym7 eonft13

2 discrimination issues. The Trainer shall be subject to the Commission's approval,

3 which will not be unreasonably withheld. If the Commission does not approve BDM's

4 proposed Trainer, the Commission shall provide BDM with a list of at least three

5 suggested candidates acceptable to the Commission. If BDM is not in agreement with

6 those suggested candidates, BDM and the Commission shall attempt for 15 days to

7 reach agreement on the identity of a Trainer. If they are not able to do so in that time

8 frame, a Trainer will be appointed by the Court from the respective lists (of not more

9 than two candidates each) submitted by each party.

10

Any proposed changes in the designation of the person or entity providing the

11 trainings shall be communicated to the EEOC in writing, within thirty (30) days of

12 such designation, as follows: BDM shall submit the name and credentials of the

13 proposed trainer to the EEOC's Los Angeles District Office Regional Attorney for

14 approval. If the Regional Attorney does not approve the person or entity proposed,

15 she shall provide BDM with a list of three acceptable candidates, from which list

16 BDM shall select the trainer. Subsequent replacement of the trainer requires the

17 Regional Attorney's approval, as set forth, above.

18

IX.

19

RECRffiTiNG AND IDRING

20

BDM shall endeavor to increase diversity in the workforce by undertaking

21 recruitment activities in the African-American community. For each twelve month

22 period beginning with the Effective Date during the term of this Consent Decree,

23 BDM shall endeavor to obtain a hiring rate of at least five (5) percent African-

24 American for each such twelve month period. In pursuing this endeavor, BDM may

25 engage in the following activities:

26

1. Advertise and actively recruit in the Black community in the San Diego

27

Metropolitan Area;

28

2. Advertise and actively recruit in minority publications such as the

6

Case 1

3:02-cv-0190D8i-vWer-sRitByBEmpDlooycmuemnet nJot u1r5nal;

Filed

08/05/2003

Page 8 of 13

2

3. Participate in job/career fairs in the Black community;

3

4. Advertise and actively recruit applicants in minority organizations of

4

major colleges and universities in the San Diego Metropolitan Area; and

5

5. Any other procedures recommended by the EEO Consultant.

6

The EEOC agrees to assist BDM in this hiring endeavor by suggesting the

7 following community resources:

8

(i). Diversity Employment Journal

Attn: Oran Brown, Publisher

9

P.O. Box 740948

San Diego, CA. 92174-0948

10

(619) 264-4555

11

(ii) Educational Cultural Complex

4343 Oceanview Blvd. Room 176

12

San Diego, CA. 92113

13

(iii) Tubman/Chavez Community Center

415 Euclid Ave.

14

San Diego, CA. 92114

15

If BDM fails to meet this annual hiring endeavor, the EEOC shall review

16 BDM's good faith compliance with its obligations under the Decree in order to

17 determine whether BDM has violated the Decree. If BDM has acted in good faith in

18 its hiring and recruiting practices, but, in spite of its good faith efforts, has not

19 attained the hiring endeavor for that year, BDM will be excused from such non-

20 compliance and shall not be deemed in violation of this section of the Decree. If,

21 however, the EEOC contends that BDM has violated this provision of the Decree, the

22 parties shall follow the procedure set out in Section XI for resolution of any dispute

23 or enforcement of the Decree.

24

X.

25

RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING

26

A. Audit Report

27

BDM shall work with the Consultant to establish an aUditing procedure that

28 provides for the monitoring of job applicant flow. Within sixty (60) calendar days

7

C1aseaf3t:e0r2e-accvh-0a1n9n0u8a-lWan-RniBvBersarDyodcautemoefntth1e5EffeFcitlievde 0D8a/0te5,/2B0D0M3 shPalalgceon9doufct1a3n annual

2 audit of the previous twelve month period (the" Audit Period") and submit a written

3 report (the "Audit Report") to the EEOC stating the total number of persons in the

4 protected and unprotected classes who during the Audit Period:

5

1. Applied for jobs;

6

2. Were interviewed;

7

3. Were hired;

8

4. Were offered positions but declined the employment offer;

9

5. Voluntarily withdrew from consideration for a position and the reason(s)

10

for the withdrawal, if known by BDM; and

11

6. Were unresponsive to BDM's attempts to conduct in-person interviews

12

for positions.

13

BDM will request voluntary disclosure of racial data from applicants for the

14 limited purpose of assembling data and submitting the Audit Report to the EEOC as

15 provided herein. The parties agree that BDM's submission of incomplete data to the

16 EEOC in any Audit Report due to withholding of such data by any applicant shall not

17 constitute a violation of this Decree.

18

The EEOC shall have forty five (45) days from receipt of each Audit Report in

19 which to inspect the records and documents reviewed or relied upon by BDM in

20 compiling the Audit Report. If, after reviewing the Audit Report and BDM's records

21 and documents regarding the recruiting, screening, interviewing, selecting, rejecting

22 and/or hiring process for positions during the Audit Period, the EEOC believes that

23 BDM has violated any provision of the Decree during the Audit Period, it shall notify

24 BDM in writing of the alleged violation (the "Notification"). BDM shall have thirty

25 (30) days from receipt of the Notification to respond to the EEOC in writing regarding

26 the alleged violation. If the parties cannot reach agreement regarding the alleged

27 violation, the EEOC may apply to the Court pursuant to Section XI for enforcement of

28 the provisions of the Decree alleged to have been violated by BDM.

8

Ca1se 3:02-cvB-.0190R8-eWpo-RrtBinBg Document 15 Filed 08/05/2003 Page 10 of 13

2

In addition to providing the Audit Report to the EEOC specified above, BDM

3 shall provide the following reports to the EEOC in writing, by mail or facsimile:

4

1. Within ninety (90) days after the Effective Date, BDM shall submit to

5 the EEOC an initial report which contains:

6

(a) A copy of its recruiting, screening, and hiring procedures; and

7

(b) A summary of the procedures for auditing applications developed

8

with the EEO Consultant for monitoring applicant flow.

9

2. BDM shall provide a report to the EEOC detailing any changes to the

10 recruiting, selection, and hiring procedures and auditing methods for monitoring

11 applicant flow within thirty (30) days before implementing such changes.

12

3. BDM shall also provide within twenty (20) days of completing the

13 training pursuant to Section VIII above the attendance lists of all attendees for all

14 training sessions required under this Decree that took place during the previous year.

15

XI.

16

COMPLIANCE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

17

In the event that the Commission believes that BDM has failed to comply with

18 any provision of this Consent Decree, the Commission shall notify BDM's president

19 in writing of such belief and the basis for its belief and afford BDM a reasonable

20 period of not less than ten (10) business days to remedy the alleged non-compliance.

21

If BDM disagrees that it has failed to comply with a provision of this Consent

22 Decree, it shall notify the EEOC in writing within ten (10) business days and the

23 Commission may then apply to this Court for appropriate relief, including but not

24 limited to a resolution of the dispute, a determination of whether BDM is in

25 compliance and, if not, an appropriate order to enforce the provisions of this Consent

26 Decree. If the Commission brings a matter before the Court, the opposing party shall

27 be provided with appropriate notice under the Local Rules of the Court and the

28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

9

..

Ca1se 3:02-cv-01908-W-RBB Document 15 XIFI.iled 08/05/2003 Page 11 of 13

2

DURATION OF DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

3

All provisions of this Consent Decree shall be in effect for a period of three

4 years.

5

For the duration of this Consent Decree, this Court shall retain jurisdiction for

6 the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Consent Decree.

7

XIII.

8

COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

9

OF CONSENT DECREE

10

BDM and the Commission shall each bear its own costs associated with the

11 administration and implementation of this Consent Decree.

12

XIV.

13

COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES

14

BDM and the Commission shall each bear its own court costs and attorneys'

15 fees.

16

XV.

17

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

18

When this Consent Decree requires the submission by BDM of reports, notices

19 or other materials to the Commission, such materials shall be mailed by certified mail

20 to: Regional Attorney, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los

21 Angeles District Office, 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor, Los Angeles, California

22 90012.

23

BDM shall provide any potential successor with a copy of this Consent Decree

24 within a reasonable time of not less than thirty (30) days prior to the execution of any

25 document providing for acquisition or assumption of control of BDM, or any other

26 material change in corporate structure, and shall simultaneously inform the EEOC of

27 same.

28 III

10

.. . ' , . Ca1se 3:02-cTv-h0is19C0o8n-sWen-Rt DBBecreeDsohcaullmbeenbti1n5dingFuipleodn0a8n/d05e/n2f0o0rc3eablPeaaggeai1n2stoBfD1M3 and
2 its respective successors and assigns.

3

A signature transmitted by facsimile shall have the same force and effect as a

4 signature penned in ink.

5
6 Date: 3/ftlj
7

BAZAAR DEL MUNDO, INC.

8

9

10 11

-' i Date: -...\ ! I.' z.,OIJ")

12

13

14

15

16

17

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
ANNA Y. PARK PETER F. LAURA
~
Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

21

22 Date: frLdoJ.

23

I

24

25 26 27

28

11

Case 3:02-cv-01908-W-RBB Document 15 Filed 08/05/2003 Page 13 of 13

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against Bazaar Del Mundo alleging that it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by failing
to hire African-American job applicants because of race. (EEOC v. Bazaar Del Mundo, Inc., Case No. 02
CV 1908 W (RBB)(SD.Cal.) Bazaar Del Mundo denies that it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and asserts that it hires all employees on the basis of job qualifications only and does not discriminate against any protected group.
Bazaar Del Mundo and the Commission engaged in settlement negotiations to resolve their differences and have agreed that they share a common interest in Bazaar Del Mundo having a workplace free from any kind of unlawful discrimination. To resolve this lawsuit the parties have entered into a Consent Decree which states that Bazaar Del Mundo will not permit race discrimination in recruiting and hiring and it will engage in recruiting activities in African-American communities with the goal of increasing diversity in the workplace. It also states that Bazaar Del Mundo will provide periodic reports to the EEOC regarding its hiring practices and it will provide training to its supervisory employees regarding laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination. Bazaar Del Mundo has agreed to pay a monetary sum and to post this Notice in a place frequented by employees for a period of three years.
It is Bazaar Del Mundo's policy to extend equal employment opportunities to all persons in all aspects of the employer-employee relationship, including recruitment, hiring, upgrading, training, promotion, transfer, discipline, layoff, recall and termination. Any employee who violates Bazaar Del Mundo's policy prohibiting discrimination will receive appropriate disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment. Bazaar Del Mundo will not retaliate in any way against persons who bring concerns about discrimination or harassment to Bazaar Del Mundo's attention.
Should you believe that you have been discriminated against because of your sex, race, color, national origin, religion, age or disability, you may file a complaint with Bazaar Del Mundo's Human Resources Department and/or you may seek assistance from:

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 401 B Street, Suite 510 San Diego, CA 92101 Tele: (619) 557-7235 Fax: (619) 557-7274

THIS NOTICE WILL BE POSTED UNTIL AUGUST 1,2006 AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.

Diane Powers, President Bazaar Del Mundo

Gregory Gochanour, Acting Regional Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

123284

 </s> EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - JULY 2003

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement08-03.html

EEOC v. Bazaar Del Mundo (BDM) No. 02 CV 01908 W (S.D. Cal. August 5, 2003)
The Los Angeles District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a Mexican-themed tourist attraction with shops and restaurants in Old Town San Diego which employs over 500 workers, refused to hire black job applicants because of their race. The black claimants applied for various jobs with defendant, including cashier, salesperson, line cook/food prep, and customer service positions, and though qualified for the positions for which they applied, were not hired. Instead, defendant continued soliciting applications and hired less qualified non-black applicants. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $120,000 which will be distributed to 12 black job applicants who were denied employment because of their race. Pursuant to the decree, defendant is enjoined from engaging in any hiring practice which discriminates against blacks. BDM further agrees to retain a consultant for a period of three years to develop recruiting, screening and hiring procedures, assist in training defendant's supervisory employees and ensure compliance with the provisions of the decree. Defendant further agrees to actively recruit black job applicants with a hiring goal of 5% black employees in each 12-month period during the three-year term of the decree.

1 of 1

6/4/2007 10:58 AM

 </s> CM/ECF - casd - Docket Report

https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101471038941761-L_9...

U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:02-cv-01908-W-RBB

TERMED

EEOC v. Bazaar Del Mundo Inc, et al Assigned to: Judge Thomas J. Whelan Referred to: Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/24/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Anna Y Park US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 255 East Temple Street Fourth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213)894-1076 Fax: (213)894-1301 Email: anna.park@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Connie K Liem US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 401 B Street Suite 510 San Diego, CA 92101 (619)557-7284 Fax: (619)557-7274 Email: connie.liem@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter F Laura Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 255 East Temple Street Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3334 (213)894-1083 Fax: (213)894-1301 Email: peter.laura@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 3

6/4/2007 10:56 AM

CM/ECF - casd - Docket Report

https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101471038941761-L_9...

V. Defendant Bazaar Del Mundo Inc
Defendant DOES 1-5, inclusive

represented by Barry M Appell Silver and Freedman 2029 Century Park East Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3005 (310)556-2356 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Belle C Mason Silver and Freedman 2029 Century Park East Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3005 (310)556-2356 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/24/2002 09/24/2002 10/04/2002 11/26/2002 12/04/2002
12/23/2002
01/08/2003

#

Docket Text

1 Complaint Filed; (referred to Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks) Fee waived. Demand for jury trial. (jpp) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
2 Summons issued (jpp) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
3 Waiver of service of summons by defendant Bazaar Del Mundo Inc on 9/26/02 (dkt clerk) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
4 Answer to complaint by defendant Bazaar Del Mundo Inc (atty maint) (dkt clerk) Modified on 11/27/2002 (Entered: 11/27/2002)
5 NOTICE AND Order by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks E.N.E. Conference set for 10:00 1/3/03 before Mag Judge Ruben Brooks (dkt clerk) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
6 Order by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks E.N.E. Conference vacated and reset 3:00 1/8/03 before Mag Judge Ruben Brooks (received in docketing on 01/06/03) (dkt clerk) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
8 Order by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks E.N.E. Conf/Case Management Conf held 3:00 1/8/03; Settlement conf set for 2:00 4/22/03 before Mag Judge Ruben Brooks (received in docketing on 01/14/03) (dkt clerk) (Entered: 01/14/2003)

2 of 3

6/4/2007 10:56 AM

CM/ECF - casd - Docket Report

https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?101471038941761-L_9...

01/09/2003 01/14/2003
01/14/2003 04/22/2003 05/06/2003 07/17/2003 08/04/2003 08/05/2003

7 Pro Hac Vice approved on behalf of plaintiff EEOC for Connie K Liem (dkt clerk) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
9 Case Management conf Order and Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks: regulating discovery and other pretrial proceedings; Case management conf held 01/08/03 Pretrial conf set for 10:30 12/8/03 before Judge Thomas Whelan Proposed final p/t conf ord by 12/01/03 (dkt clerk) Modified on 01/14/2003 (Entered: 01/14/2003)
10 Order by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks following ENE conf, setting Rule 26 compliance and notice of case management conf or further settlement conf. Settlement conf has been set for 04/22/03 at 2 pm before Judge Brooks (dkt clerk) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
11 Order by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks: Settlement conf held 04/22/03 Telephonic Settlement conf set for 8:00 5/6/03 before Mag Judge Ruben Brooks (dkt clerk) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
12 Order by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks: Telephonic settlement conf held 05/06/03 Settlement conf set for 1:30 7/23/03 before Mag Judge Ruben Brooks (dkt clerk) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
13 Order by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks Settlement conference vacated 1:30 7/23/03; Settlement Dispo Conf set for 8:30 8/26/03 before Mag Judge Ruben Brooks (dkt clerk) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
14 Order by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks Settlement Disposition Conf vacated 8:30 8/26/03 Consent decree was received on 08/01/03 (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
15 CONSENT DECREE and Order by Judge Thomas J. Whelan: The Consent Decree resolves all issues and claims arising out of the complaint filed by the EEOC. The Consent Decree does not constitute an adjudication by this Court on the merits of the allegations of the EEOC. Neither the agreement to enter into this consent decree nor any provisions herein constitute any admission by either party as to the claims or defenses of the other. The Consent decree in no way effects the EEOC's rights to process charges against BDM not otherwise covered by the decree. terminating case (dkt clerk) (Entered: 08/06/2003)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

06/04/2007 08:56:01

hs0328 Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

3:02-cv-01908-W-RBB

2

Cost:

0.16

3 of 3

6/4/2007 10:56 AM


[CONTENT] September 2002 | EEOC | Los Angeles | California | Bazaar Del Mundo | the U.S. District Court | the Southern District | California ||| Title VII of the Civil Rights Act | Blacks ||| two | August 2003 ||| 120,000 | four hours | five percent | each year | annual |||  ||| three years [SUMMARY] In September 2002, the EEOC district office in Los Angeles, California brought this suit against Bazaar Del Mundo, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.  The complaint states that a Black female alleged that the defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it refused to hire her, and similarly situated Blacks, for service positions.  After two settlement conferences, a consent decree was entered in August 2003. 

In the consent decree, the parties agreed that the defendant would pay the class of complainants $120,000, refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, hire an EEO consultant to ensure compliance, post and distribute an EEO notice, provide four hours of EEO training, make a good faith effort to hire five percent Blacks out of its total hiring each year, and submit annual audit reports.  No fees or costs were awarded.  The terms of the agreement ran for three years.

