Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 1 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 1 of 6

1 Anna Y. Park, CA SBN 164242 Cherry Marie Rojas, CA SBN 141482
2 Gregory L. McClinton, CA SBN 153553
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 3 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor
4 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-1053
Facsimile: (213) 894-1301

Attorneys for Plaintiff

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMIS SION

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT

10

C V-S-05-(,)4:2 7-LRH-P’AI,

11 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 12 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

13

Plaintiff,

14

COMPLAINT-CIVIL RIGHTS SEX HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION

15 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT,

16

INCORPORATED, A DELAWARE CORPOIC&TION; PARK PLACE

17

ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, A I)ELAWARE CORPORATION AND

18 DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE,

1

Defendants.

(42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.; ) DEMAND FOR JURY TIOAL

2(:

2~

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2;i.

This is a sexual harassment and retaliation action brought by the United Sl:ates Equal

2:? Employment Opportunity Commission ("the Commission" or "Plaintiff"), under Ti|le VIII of the

2Z. Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of

25: sex and to provide appropriate relief to the Charging Parties, Jessica Alvarado, Candelaria

Turcios, t_:;lina Masid, Jessemia Chamorro, Maribel Mendoza, Tange Johnson (col lectiw~]y

2";’ refen’ed to hereafter as "the Charging Parties"), and a class of similarly s[tuatcd indMduals, who 2S were adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that "the Charging Parties"

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 1 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 2 of 6

and other similarly situated individuals were sexually harassed or subjected to sex.-based

harassment during their employment with Defendants, Caesars Entertainr:aent Inc.... a Delaware

Corporation, and Park Place Enlertainment Corporation, a Delaware Corporation ("Defendant

Employers"). Charging Parties, and other similarly situated individuals were subjected to a

5 hostile work environment perpetuated by Defendants’ supervisor(s) and co-workers.

6

The Commission also alleges that the Charging Parties and other similarly siu~ated

7 individuals who had complained of the harassment by supervisors were subjected to retaliation

8 in the form. of demotion, loss of wages, further harassment, discipline or discharge.

9

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 45t, 1331,

11 1337, 1342. and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to §§706(f)(l) al~d (3)

12 and 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-.5(f),(l) and

13 (3) and pursuant to § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §§198IA.

14

2. The employment practices alleged herein to be unlawful were co~nmitted within

t5 the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the State of Nevada.

16

3. Prior to institution of this lawsuit, the Commission’s representalive’s attempted to

17 eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntap,~ coml:,liance

18 with Title VII through informal methods of conciliation, conference and persuasion within the

19 meaning of §§706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C., §§2000e-5(f)(1)and (3). All conditions

20 precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

21

PARTIES

22

4. Plaintiff Commission is an agency of the United States of .&me~-ica ,cl~arged with

23 the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to

24 bring this action under §§706(f)(1) and (3) and 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C., 9§ 2000e--5(f)(1) and

25 (311 and 2000e-6(e).

26

5. At all relevant times, "Defendant Employers," have continuousliy been and are

27 now doing business in the State of Nevada, County of Washoe, and City of Las Vegas, Nevada.

28

-2-

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 1 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 3 of 6

l

6. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of "Defendant E:~plo:!/ers,"

2 sued as DOES 1 through 10, inclusively, and therefore Plaintiff sues said "I)eli~ndant

3 Employers" by such fictitious names. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend l:he complaint 1:o

4 name the DOE "Defendant Employers" individually or collectively as they become known.

5 Plaintiff alleges that each of the "Defendant Employers" named as DOES was in so, me manner

responsible for the acts and omissions alleged herein and Plaintiff will amend the complzrint to

7 allege such responsibility when same has been ascertained by Plaintiff.

8

7. It is further alleged on information and belief that the named a~:d urmamed

9 defendants in the complaint are mere alter egos of the "Defendant Employers." The re:maining

t0 I.-)efendants are properly named in the complaint.

11

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

12 attributable to "Defendant Employers", each acting as a successor, agent, e~nploivee or under the

13 direction and control of the others, except as specifically alleged otherwise. Said acts and

14 failures to act were within the scope of such agency and/or employment, and eac:h "Defendant

15 Employers" participated in, approved and/or ratified the unlawful acts and om:is:;ions by other

16 "Defendant Employers" complained of herein. Whenever and wherever ret~re..nce to m~y act in

17 this Complaint to any act by a defendant employer or "Defendant Employers," s~ach .allegations

18 and reference shall also be deemed to mean the acts and failures to act of each "De.fendm~t

19 !:’_’mployer" acting individually, jointly and/or severally.

20

9. At all relevant times, "Defendant Employers" have continuously-be:~m employers

21 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §§ 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title

22 VII, 42 U.S.C., §§ 2000e-l(b), (g) and (h) and §§ 1 l(b), (g), and (h).

23

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

24

10. Since on or about January 1, 2000 to the present date, "De[endant l~!mployers"

25 have engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facility in Las Vegas, Nevada i-n violation

26 of § § 706(1)( 1 ) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C., § §2000e-5 (f)(I) mad (3). The unl awfu.[ sexual

27 harassment and sex based harassment in the form of verbal harassment directed :at Iihe Charging

28 Parties and other similarly situated individual women impacted the terms and conditions eftheir

-3-

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 1 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 4 of 6

1 employment and created a hostile working environment at "Defendant Ernl:~loyers.’" These

2. practices also included the retaliation against and/or termination of the Charging Pa~ties and

3 other similarly situated individuals for having complained about the hostile work ,:,’n vironment.

4

11. The impact of the aforementioned conduct deprived the Charging P~uties and

other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities a~d otherwi.s.e adversely

impacted their employment status because of their sex and in retaliation t:br opposiing

7 discriminatow practices or engaging in a protected activity that resulted in adverse employment

action.

9

12. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are willful

10 within the meaning of §§706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C., §§2000e-5(f?(]_ )and {3).

ll

13. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional and

12 caused the Charging Parties and other similarly situated individuals to suffer enn~ol:ionaI d:istress.

12,

14. "Defendant Employers" have acted with malice or reckless indift~rerx:e to the

14 federally protected rights of the Charging Parties and other similarly situated indi~,’iduals by

15 subjecting them to harassment consisting of sexually charged conduct, forced vaginal sex,

16 attempted sodomy, forced oral sex, unwelcomed touching, derogatory statements, and obscene

17 and vulgar language. Women were openly asked by supervisor(s) to peribrm acts o:Y a sexual

18 nature as ~veI1 as subjected to other derogatory and obscene statements. When Charging Parties

19 complained to "Defendant Employers" about the harassment they and other similar situated

2O individuals were being subjected to, their requests were either ignored or they were subjected to

21 further harassment. The Charging Parties and other similarly situated individuals were also

subject to retaliation for opposing discrimination or engaging in a protected activity resulting in

2:~ an adverse’, employment action that harmed them.

24

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

25

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

2(i,

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining "Defendant Empl.ayers.," it:~’, officers,

successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them, fr,::,,m engaging

-4-

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 1 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 5 of 6

1 in any employment practices that discriminate on the basis of sex or from engag in.!!: in unlawful

2 retaliation;

B.

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining "Defendant Employers.," th.ei:c officers,

4 successors., assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them, l~ro~ engaging

5 in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex;

O

C. Order "Defendant Employers" to institute and carry out policies, practices .and

7 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females whi.ch eradic ate the effects

8 of their past and present unlawful employment practices;

9

D. Grant a judgment requiring "Defendant Employers" to pay the Charg:~ng Parties

l0 and other similarly situated individuals appropriate back pay, front pay, compensator..3, damages

ll and benefil:s in an amount to be determined at trial including prejudgment interest:

12

E.

Order "Defendant Employers" to make the Charging Parties and ott~er sim:ilarly

13 situated individuals whole by providing affirmative relief necessary to eradical:e th e: effecls of its

14 unlawful practices including, but not limited to, payment of compensatory dam.ages to Charging

15 Parties and. other similarly situated individuals and/or rightful place employmc, nc;

16

F.

Order "Defendant Employers" to pay Charging Parties and other similarly

17 situated individuals punitive dalnages in an amount to be determined at trial;

18

G. Award the Commission its costs in this action; and

19

H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper i:i~.

20 the public :interest.

21 /i’!

22 ///

23 I,,’/

24 I/I

25 U!

26 I,i!

27 I!/

28

-5-

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 1 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 6 of 6

l

JURY DEMAND

2

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

3

Respectfully Submitted By:

4

5

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507

7

8

Eric S. Dreiband

General Counsel 9

James Lee

10

Deputy General Counsel

tl

Gwendolyn Reams

Associate General Counsel 12

13 March 30, 2005 14

By: -Anna q(. Park, Regional A{tom~
Gregory L. McClinton, Trial. Attorney

15

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

16

255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90012.

t7

(213) 894-1053

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-

 </s> ....
---<
Z
(J)
er:
0

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 9 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 1 of 6

j
1 Anna Y. Park, CA SBN 164242 Cherry- Marie D. Rojas, CA SBN 141482
2 Gregory L. McClinton, CA SBN 153553 Connie Liem TX SBN, 791113
3 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
4 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012
5 Telephone: (213) 894-1053 Facsimile: (213) 894-1301
6 Connie Liem TX SBN, 791113
7 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
8 401 B St., Suite 510 San Diego, CA. 92018
9 Telephone: (619) 557-7284 Facsimile: (619) 557-7274
10

11 Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
12 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

15

16

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

17

Plaintiff,

18

v.

19

20

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INCORPORATED, A DELAWARE

21

CORPORATION; PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, A

22

DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND DESERT PALACE, INC., d/b/a

23

CAESAR'S PALACE, A NEVADA CORPORATION, DOES 1-10

24 INCLUSIVE,

25

Defendants.

) CASE NO.: CV-S-05-0427-LRH-PAL
)
) )
) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) -CIVIL RIGHTS ) SEX HARASSMENT AND ) RETALIATION
) )
)
) (42 U.S.c. §§ 2000e, et seq.; )
)
) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
)
)

26

NATURE OF THE ACTION

27

This is a sexual harassment and retaliation action brought by the United States Equal

28 Employment Opportunity Commission ("the Commission" or "Plainti ff'), under Title VII of the

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 9 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 2 of 6
-:otl

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 9 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 3 of 6

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to correct unlawful employmcnt practices on thc basis of

2 sex and to provide appropriate relief to the Charging Parties, Jessica Alvarado, Candclaria

3 Turcios, Elina Masid, Jessemia Chamorro, Maribcl Mendoza, Tangc Johnson (collectivcly

4 referred to hereafter as "the Charging Parties"), and a class of similarly situated individuals, who

5 were adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that "thc Charging Parties"

6 and other similarly situated individuals were scxually harassed or subjccted to sex-based

7 harassment during their employment with Defendants, Caesars Entcrtainment Inc., a Dclawarc

8 Corporation, Park Place Entertainment Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and Desert Palace,

9 Inc., d/b/a Caesar's Palace, a Nevada Corporation ("Defendant Employcrs"). Charging Parties,

I0 and other similarly situated individuals were subjcctcd to a hostilc work environment

II perpetuated by Defendants' supervisor(s) and co-workcrs.

12

The Commission also alleges that the Charging Parties and other similarly situated

13 individuals who had complained of the harassment by supervisors wcre subjected to retaliation

14 in the form of demotion, loss of wages, further harassment, disciplinc or dischargc.

15

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16

I.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invokcd pursuant to 28 U.s.c. sections 451, 1331,

17 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to ~ ~ 706( t)(1 ) and (3)

18 and 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of I %4, as amended, 42 U.S.c. ~2000e-5(f)(I) and

19 (3) and pursuant to § 102 of thc Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. ~~ 1981 A.

20

2.

The employment practices allegcd hcrcin to be unlawful were committed within

21 thc jurisdiction of the United States District Court lor the State of Nevada.

22

3.

Prior to institution of this lawsuit, thc Commission's representatives attempted to

23 eliminate the unlawful employment practices allegcd bclow and to effect voluntary compliance

24 with Title VII through informal methods of conciliation, conference and persuasion within thc

25 meaning of §§706(t)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S. c., §§2000e-5(t)(I) and (3). All conditions

26 precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have bcen fulfilled.

27

PARTIES

28

4.

Plaintiff Commission is an agency 0 f thc United S tatcs of America charged with

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 9 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 4 of 6

the administration, interpretation and enforcemcnt of Title VII, and is cxpressly authorized to
2 bring this action under §~706(f)(l) and (3) and 707 ofTitle VII, 42 U.s.c., ~~ 2000e-5(f)(I) and

3 (3) and 2000e-6(e).

4

5.

At all relevant times, "Defendant Employers," havc continuously been and are

5 now doing business in the State of Nevada, County of Washoe, and City of Las Vegas, Nevada.

6

7

6. Plaintiffis ignorant of the true namcs and capacities of "Defendant Employers,"

8 sued as DOES 1 through 10, inclusively, and thcrcforc Plaintiff sues said "Defendant

9 Employers" by such fictitious names. Plaintiffrcscrves the right to amend the complaint to

10 name the DOE "Defendant Employers" individually or collectively as they becomc known.

II Plaintiff alleges that each of the "Defendant Employers" named as DOES was in some manner

12 responsible for the acts and omissions alleged herein and Plaintiff will amend the complaint to

13 allege such responsibility when same has been ascertained by Plaintiff.

14

7. It is further alleged on information and belief that the named and unnamed

15 defendants in the complaint are mere alter egos of the "Defendant Employers." The remaining

16 Defendants are properly named in the complaint.

17

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

18 attributable to "Defendant Employers", each acting as a successor, agent, employee or under the

19 direction and control of the others, except as specifically alleged otherwise. Said acts and

20 failures to act were within the scope of such agency and/or employment, and each "Defendant

21 Employers" participated in, approved andlor ratified the unlawful acts and omissions by other

22 "Defendant Employers" complained of herein. Whenever and wherever reference to any act in

23 this Complaint to any act by a defendant employer or "Defendant Employers," such allegations

24 and reference shall also be deemed to mean the acts and failures to act of each "Defendant

25 Employer" acting individually, jointly and/or severally.

26

9. At all relevant times, "Defendant Employers" have continuously been employers

27 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of ~~ 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title

28 VII, 42 U.S.C., §§ 2000e-l(b), (g) and (h) and ~~ II(b), (g), and (h).

-.,' -

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 9 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 5 of 6

I

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

2

10. Since on or about January 1,2000 to the present date, "Defendant Employers"

3 have engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facility in Las Vegas, Nevada in violation
4 of~~706(f)(l) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S. c., ~~2000e-5(f)(l) and (3). The unlawful sexual

5 harassment and sex based harassment in the foml of verbal harassment directed at the Charging

6 Parties and other similarly situated individual women impacted the terms and conditions of their

7 employment and created a hostile working environment at "Defendant Employers." These

8 practices also included the retaliation against amJior termination of the Charging Parties and

9 other similarly situated individuals for having complained about the hostile work environment.

10

II. The impact of the aforementioned conduct deprived the Charging Parties and

II other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely

12 impacted their employment status because of their sex and in retaliation for opposing

13 discriminatory practices or engaging in a protected activity that resulted in adverse employment

14 action.

IS

12. The unlawful employment practices complained of ahove were and are willful

c.. 16 within the meaning of §~ 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S. ~~2000e-5(f)(l) and (3).

17

13. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional and

18 caused the Charging Parties and other similarly situated individuals to suffer emotional distress.

19

14. "Defendant Employers" have acted with malice or reckless indifference to the

20 federally protected rights of the Charging Parties and other similarly situated individuals by

21 subjecting them to harassment consisting of sexual1y charged conduct, forced vaginal sex,

22 attempted sodomy, forced oral sex, unwe\comed touching, derogatory statements, and obscene

23 and vulgar language. Women were openly asked by supervisor(s) to perform acts of a sexual

24 nature as well as subjected to other derogatory and obscene statements. When Charging Parties

25 complained to "Defendant Employers" about the harassment they and other similar situated

26 individuals were being subjected to, their requests were either ignored or they were subjected to

27 further harassment. The Charging Parties and other similarly situated individuals were also

28 subject to retaliation for opposing discrimination or engaging in a protected activity resulting in

-4-

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 9 Filed 06/08/2005 Page 6 of 6

JURY DEMAND

2

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

3

Respectfully Submitted By:

4

5

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

6

1801 "L" Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20507

7

8

Eric S. Dreiband

General Counsel

9

James Lee

10

Deputy General Counsel

I I

Gwendolyn Reams

Associate General Counsel

12

13 14 Dated: June 7, 2005 15 16

By:

, ., - f ( . ,/

Anna Y. Pafk, Regional Attorney Cherry-Marie D. Rojas, Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory L. McClinton, Senior Trial Attorney Connie Liem, Senior Trial Attorney

17

18

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 </s> Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 1 of 44

1 Federico Castelan Sayre, CA SBN 67420

Yolanda M. Medina, CA SBN 222273 2 LAW OFFICES OF FEDERICO C. SAYRE

3

900 North Broadway, 4th Floor Santa Ana, California 92701

4 Telephone: (714) 550-9117 Facsimile: (714) 550-9125
5

Matthew Q. Callister, NV SBN 1396

6 CALLISTER & REYNOLDS

7

823 So. 6th Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

8 Telephone: (702) 385-3343 Facsimile: (702) 385-2899
9 Local Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenors

,/FILED

~RECEIVED

ENIERED

~,>,.R,’ED ON

COUNSEL/PARTIES OF RECORD

20O5
CLERK US DIS~RtCT COURT BY: DIST~/C~ C~ EVA:)A DSPL’.-’f]

10 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, 11 TANGE JOHNSON and CANDELARIA TURCIOS

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14

15 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
16

) CaseNo. CV-S-05-0427-LRH-PAL
)
) COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF

17 VS.

Plaintiff,

) PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS, ELINA ) MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO

18 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT,

) PANAMENO, TANGE JOI-INSON and ) CANDELARIA TURCIOS

19 INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; )

PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT

)

20 CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

)

21

)

22

Defendants.

)

ELINA MASID, JESSICA )kLVARADO )

23 PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON and

)

CANDELARIA TURCIOS,

)

24

)

25 VS.

Plaintiff-Intervenors, ) )

26

)

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT,

)

27 INCORPORATED., a Delaware Corporation; )

PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT

28

I’~o.I .......~ .....

)

I

COMPLAINT FN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO

PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 2 of 44

1 DESERT PALACE INC., a Nevada

)

Corporation, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE; )

2 JUAN GONZALEZ; DANIEL PINELO;

)

3 RICARDO HERNANDEZ; and DOES 1-10 )

inclusive,

)

4

Defendants.

)

)
5

6

7

8

Plaintiffs-Intervenors ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO,

9 TANGE JOHNSON and CANDELARJA TURCIOS, by their attorneys of record, the Law

10 Offices of Federico Castelan Sayre, allege and complain as follows:

11

NATURE OF THE ACTION

12

1. This is a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought against Defendants

13 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT

14 CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, a Nevada Corporation, D.B.A.

15 CAESARS PALACE (collectively, referred to hereafter as "Employer-Defendants") under the

16 Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 42 U.S.C. §§2000 et seq. ("Title VII") and individual

17 defendants JUAN GONZALEZ (hereinafter referred to as "GONZALEZ"), DANIEL PINELO

18 (hereinafter referred to as "PINELO") and RICARDO HERNANDEZ (hereinafter referred to as

19 "HERNANDEZ") by Plaintiff-Intervenors, JESSICA ALVARADO, CANDELARIA

20 TURCIOS, ELINA MASID, and TANGE JOHNSON (collectively referred to hereafter as

21 "Plaintiff-Intervenors").

22

2. Plaintiff-Intervenors have filed this lawsuit because they were sexually

23 harassed or subjected to sex-based harassment during their employment with Employer-

24 Defendants. Plaintiff-Intervenors were subjected to a hostile work environment perpetuated by

25 Employer-Defendants’ supervisor(s) and co-workers. Plaintiff-Intervenors also allege that

26 when they complained of the harassment by supervisors, they were subjected to retaliation in

27 the form of demotion, loss wages, further harassment, discipline or threats of discharge.

28
2 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 3 of 44

1

3. Plaintiff-Intervenors have filed this lawsuit against individual defendants

2 GONZALEZ, PINELO and HERNANDEZ, who were employees of Employer-Defendants, for

3 claims under Nevada State Law.

4

I. PARTIES

5

4. Plaintiff-Intervenor, ELINA MASID, is an individual and has resided in Las

6 Vegas, Nevada at all times pertinent hereto. From approximately February 15,2001, to the

7 present date, ELINA MASID has been employed by Defendants.

8

5. Plaintiff-Intervenor, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, is an individual

9 and has resided in Las Vegas, Nevada at all times pertinent hereto. From approximately April

10 24, 2000 to the present date, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO has been employed by

11 Defendants.

12

6. Plaintiff-Intervenor, TANGE JOHNSON, is an individual and has resided in

13 Las Vegas, Nevada at all times pertinent hereto. From approximately 1992 to the present date,

14 TANGE JOHNSON has been employed by Defendants.

15

7. Plaintiff-Intervenor, CALENDARIA TURCIOS, is an individual and has

16 resided in Las Vegas, Nevada at all times pertinent hereto. From approximately May 16, 2000,

17 to the present date, CALENDARIA TURCIOS has been employed by Defendants.

18

8. Defendant, CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED and PARK

19 PLACE CORPORATION are both Delaware corporations and at all relevant times Defendants

20 have continuously been and are now doing business in the State of Nevada, County of Washoe,

21 and City of Las Vegas, Nevada.

22

9. Defendant, DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, is a Nevada corporation,

23 doing business as CAESARS PALACE and at all relevant times Defendant has continuously

24 been and is now doing business in the City of Las Vegas, Nevada.

25

10. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged

26 in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §§ 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42

27 U.S.C., §§2000e-l(b), (g) and (h) and §§1 l(b), (g) and (h).

28
3 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 4 of 44

1

11. At all relevant times, Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT

2 INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE

3 INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE have employed more than fifteen (15) people

4 for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks; thus, Defendants meet the

5 definition of"employer" under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

6

12. Defendant, GONZALEZ is an individual and was employed by Employer-

7 Defendants at all times pertinent hereto and was in the position of executive steward.

8

13. Defendant, PINELO, is an individual and was employed by Employer-

9 Defendants and at all times pertinent hereto in the position of assistant executive steward.

10

14. Defendant, HERNANDEZ, is an individual and was employed by Employer-

II Defendants and at all times pertinent hereto and was in the position of executive steward.

t2

15. Plaintiff-Intervenors are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendant

13 employers sued as DOES 1 through 10, inclusively, and therefore Plaintiff-Intervenors sue said

14 defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff-Intervenors reserve the right to amend their complaint

15 to name the DOE individually or collectively as they become known. Plaintiff alleges that each

16 of the defendants named as DOES as in some manner responsible for the acts and omissions

17 alleged herein and Plaintiff-Intervenors will amend the complaint to allege such responsibility

18 when same has been ascertained by Plaintiff-Intervenors.

19

16. It is further alleged on information and belief that the named and unnamed

20 defendants in the complaint are mere alter egos of the Defendants. The remaining defendants

21 are properly named in the complaint.

22

17. All of the acts and failures to act alleged herein were duly performed by or

23 under the direction and control of the others, except as specifically alleged otherwise. Said acts

24 and failures to act were within the scope of such agency and/or employment, and each

25 defendant participated in, approved and/or ratified the unlawful acts and omissions by other

26 defendants complained of herein. Whenever and wherever there is reference to any act in this

27 Complaint by any defendant, such allegations and references shall also be deemed to mean the

28 ~et~ nnd f~ilure~ tn net nfeneh defendnntaeling individnnlly.~ininllv. nnd/~r ~e,v~mlly
4
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MAS1D, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 5 of 44

1

II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

2

18. On or about December 2, 2002, ELINA MASID filed a charge of

3 discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, thereby satisfying the

4 requirements of 42 U.S.C.A. §2000e-5(b), (e). Such charge was filed within one hundred and

5 eighty (180) days of the unlawful employment practice.

6

19. Plaintiff ELINA MASID was subjected to a continuing series of incidents of

7 harassment described in Parts IV through VIII below, which began on or about May 15, 2002.

8

20. On or about December 9, 2002, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO filed a

9 charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, thereby

10 satisfying the requirements of 42 U.S.C.A. §2000e-5(b), (e). Such charge was filed within one

11 hundred and eighty (180) days of the unlawful employment practice.

12

21. Plaintiff JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO was subjected to a continuing

13 series of incidents of harassment described in Parts IV through VIII below, which began on or

14 about August 15, 2000.

15

22. On or about March 21, 2001, TANGE JOHNSON filed a charge of

16 discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, thereby satisfying the

17 requirements of 42 U.S.C.A. §2000e-5(b), (e). Such charge was filed within one hundred and

18 eighty (180) days of the unlawful employment practice.

19

23. Plaintiff TANGE JOHNSON was subjected to a continuing series of incidents

20 of harassment described in Parts IV through VIII below, which began in or about September

21 2000.

22

24. On or about December 2, 2002, CANDELARIA TURCIOS filed a charge of

23 discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, thereby satisfying the

24 requirements of 42 U.S.C.A. §2000e-5(b), (e). Such charge was filed within one hundred and

25 eighty (180) days of the unlawful employment practice.

26

25. Plaintiff CANDELARIA TURCIOS was subjected to a continuing series of

27 incidents of harassment described in Parts IV through VIII below, which began in or about May

28 nncl/or hlno nf 9.(il31 or 9002.
5 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 6 of 44

l

26. On or about September 14, 2004, the EEOC, after investigation, issued a Letter

2 of Determination with respect to the charges against Defendants. The EEOC "determined that

3 there is a reasonable cause to believe that Charging Party was subjected to sex harassment and

4 retaliation. The EEOC’s investigation further revealed reasonable cause to believe that females

5 as a class are subjected to ongoing pattern of sex harassment and retaliation for having

6 participated in a protected activity."

7

27. On March 30, 2005, the EEOC filed a Complaint in this court against

8 Employer-Defendants alleging, among other things, that Employer-Defendants engaged in

9 unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex against JESSICA ALVARADO,

10 CANDELARIA TURCIOS, ELINA MASID, Jessemia Chamorro, Maribel Mendoza, TANGE

11 JOHNSON and a class of similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such

12 practices.

13

28. JESSICA ALVARADO, CANDELARIA TURCIOS, ELINA MASID, and

14 TANGE JOHNSON seek to intervene in the proceedings commenced by the EEOC, pursuant to

t5 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

16

III. VENUE AND JURISDICTION

17

29. This court has jurisdiction of the claim herein pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A.§ 2000e-

18 5(f)(3), 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331 and 1343(4). This civil action arises under the laws of the United

19 States. Plaintiff-Intervenors are alleging a violation of their rights under Title VII of the Civil

20 Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000 et seq. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a),

21 Plaintiff-Intervenors request this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear and decide

22 claims against defendants GONZALEZ, P1NELO and HERNANDEZ arising under Nevada

23 state law.

24

30. Venue herein is proper under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-

25 5(f)(3). Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE

26 ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A.

27 CAESARS PALACE all were doing business in the State of Nevada at relevant times hereto,

28 and the unlnwfilt emplc~yment prnetiee.~ nfwhieh Plnintiff-lntervennr~ are e~nmnlninino of were

6

~ ~

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSlCA ALVARADO

PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 7 of 44

l committed in the State of Nevada. Defendants GONZALEZ, PINELO and HERNANDEZ at all

2 times relevant hereto were agents and/or employees of Defendant-Employers.

3

IV. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4

FOR HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT

5

(Against All Defendants)

6

31. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

7 paragraphs 1 through 30 above.

8

32. This action is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

9 amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000 et seq.

10

33. Plaintiff-Intervenors are women and as such are members of a group protected

11 under TITLE VII from discrimination on the basis of sex.

t2

34. Commencing on or about May 15, 2002, Defendant GONZALEZ, engaged in a

13 persistent pattern of severe and pervasive harassment by making sexually explicit comments to

14 ELINA MASID, touching ELINA MASID’s hair, telling ELINA MASID that she had lovely

t5 breasts, asking ELINA MASID to give him kisses, and asking ELINA MASID to give him rides

16 every two to three weeks wherein GONZALEZ would try to touch her breasts, which created a

17 hostile environment for EL1NA MASID.

18

35. ELINA MASID did not welcome the conduct described in paragraph 34, and

19 advised GONZALEZ that such conduct was unwelcome.

20

36. Commencing on or about May 15, 2002, Defendant PINELO, engaged in a

21 persistent pattern of severe and pervasive harassment by making sexually explicit comments to

22 ELINA MASID, touching ELINA MASID’s hair, exposing his genitals to ELINA MASID,

23 grabbing his genitals in front of ELINA MASID, and ejaculating in front of ELINA MASID,

24 which created a hostile environment for ELINA MASID.

25

37. ELINA MASID did not welcome the conduct described in paragraph 36, and

26 advised PINELO that such conduct was unwelcome.

27

38. Commencing on or about August 15, 2000, Defendant GONZALEZ, engaged

28 in a perei~tent pattern nf ~evere and pervasive hzrn~ment hy making ~exlml ndvznee_~ tnwzrd
7
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 8 of 44

1 JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO in that he grabbed JESSICA ALVARADO

2 PANAMENO’s body, pressured JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO to have sexual

3 intercourse with him, forced JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO to have vaginal and/or oral

4 sex with him, and made sexually explicit comments to JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO.

5

39. jESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO did not welcome the conduct described

6 in paragraph 38, and advised GONZALEZ that such conduct was unwelcome.

7

40. Commencing on or about August 15, 2000, Defendant PINELO, engaged in a

8 persistent pattern of severe and pervasive harassment by making sexually explicit comments to

9 JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, exposing his genitals to JESSICA ALVARADO

10 PANAMENO, and repeatedly telling JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO that he wanted to

11 have sex with her.

12

41. JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO did not welcome the conduct described

13 in paragraph 40, and advised PINELO that such conduct was unwelcome.

14

42. Commencing in or about September 2000, Defendant HERNANDEZ engaged

15 in a persistent pattern of severe and pervasive harassment in that he grabbed and touched

16 TANGE JOHNSON, exposed his genitalia to TANGE JOHNSON, pressured TANGE

17 JOHNSON to have sexual intercourse with him, pushed TANGE JOHNSON against the wall,

18 pressured TANGE JOHNSON to look at pornographic magazines, and made sexually explicit

19 comments to TANGE JOHNSON.

20

43. TANGE JOHNSON did not welcome the conduct described in paragraph 42,

21 and advised HERNANDEZ that such conduct was unwelcome.

22

44. Commencing in or about mid 2001 or 2002, Defendant PINELO engaged in

23 persistent pattern of severe and pervasive harassment by making sexually explicit comments to

24 CANDELARIA TURCIOS, exposing his genitals to CANDELARIA TURCIOS, telling

25 CANDELARIA TURCIOS that he wanted to have sex with her, continually staring at

26 CANDELARIA TURCIOS, and telling co-workers in front of CALENDARIA TURCIOS that

27 CALENDARIA TURCIOS had not escaped his sexual advances.

28
8 COMPLAINT 1N INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 9 of 44

1

45. CANDELARIA TURCIOS did not welcome the conduct described in

2 paragraph 44, and advised PINELO that such conduct was unwelcome.

3

46. Plaintiff-Intervenors were subjected to the harassment because of their sex.

4

47. The harassment described in paragraphs 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 and 44 has a greater

5 impact on persons of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ sex in the workplace than on persons of the opposite

6 sex.

7

48. The harassment adversely affected the Plaintiff-Intervenors’ psychological

8 well- being.

9

49. The harassment unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff-Intervenors work

10 performance.

11

50. The harassment to which Plaintiff-Intervenors were subjected to would affect

12 the psychological well-being and unreasonably interfere with the work performance of a

t3 reasonable person of Plaintiff-lntervenors sex.

14

51. Sexual harassment was sufficiently widespread, pervasive, and prevalent at the

15 workplace of Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE

16 CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE at

17 all times pertinent hereto to charge Defendants with constructive notice of it.

18

52. Prior to filing a charge with the EEOC, Plaintiff-Intervenor ELINA MASID,

19 gave Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE

20 CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE

21 actual notice of sexual harassment in or about mid 2002.

22

53. Prior to filing a charge with the EEOC, Plaintiff-Intervenor JESSICA

23 ALVARADO PANAMENO, gave Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT

24 INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE

25 INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE actual notice of sexual harassment in or about

26 mid-2002.

27

54. Prior to filing a charge with the EEOC, Plaintiff-Intervenor TANGE JOHNSON,

28 gnve 1-)efendant~ CAF.,qAR,q F, NTTI~.I~TAINIMUNTT INTC, CIRPC~R ATI:;.1-’) PARle PI,ACE
9 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 10 of 44

1 CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE

2 notice of sexual harassment on several occasions starting November 2000.

3

55. Prior to filing a charge with the EEOC, Plaintiff-Intervenor CANDELARIA

4 TURCIOS, gave Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK

5 PLACE CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS

6 PALACE, actual notice of sexual harassment in or about mid 2001 or 2002 by calling

7 HERNANDEZ, the executive steward and PINELO’s supervisor, and telling HERNANDEZ

8 that she had a problem with PINELO. HERNANDEZ refused to meet with CALENDARIA

9 TURCIOS in person to discuss the problem she had with PINELO and HERNANDEZ told

10 CALENDARIA TURCIOS that he knew what her complaint was about PINELO, that he had

11 had other complaints about PINELO and that the problem would be resolved.

12

56. Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE

13 CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE

14 failed to investigate Plaintiff-Intervenors’ complaints.

15

57. Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE

16 CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE

17 failed to take adequate remedial action.

18

58. Following Plaintiff-Intervenors’ complaints and the response of Defendants

19 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE CORPORATION, and

20 DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE the harassment of

21 Plaintiff-Intervenors continued.

22

59. Defendants GONZALEZ and PINELO had the power to alter or affect the terms

23 and conditions of the employment of ELENA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO

24 and CANDELARIA TURCIOS by firing, transferring, altering their work schedule and/or

25 evaluating their work performance.

26

60. Defendant HERNANDEZ had the power to alter or affect the terms and

27 conditions of the employment of TANGE JOHNSON by firing, transferring, altering her work

28
10
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 11 of 44

!

61. Defendants GONZALEZ, PINELO, and HERNANDEZ were all acting within the

2 scope of their employment at all pertinent times herein.

3

62. Plaintiff-Intervenors sustained emotional suffering and injury attributable to the

4 harassment.

5

63. Defendants acted with malice and with reckless indifference to Plaintiff-

6 Intervenors’ civil rights and emotional and physical well-being.

7

V. SECOND, CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8

FOR QUID PRO Q~O SEXUAL HARASSMENT

9

(Against All Defendants)

10

64. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

11 paragraphs 1 through 63 above.

12

65. This action is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

13 amended, 4:2 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000 et seq.

14

66. Plaintiff-Intcrvenors are women and as such are members of a group protected

15 under TITLE VII from discrimination on the basis of sex.

16

67. ELINA MASID was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual

17 favors or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature by PINELO and GONZALEZ who

18 were placed in a position of authority over ELINA MASID by Defendants CAESARS

19 ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE CORPORATION, and DESERT

20 PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE.

21

68. ELINA MASID did not welcome GONZALEZ’s advances, rejected them, and

22 advised GONZALEZ that his advances were unwelcome.

23

69. ELINA MASID did not welcome PINELO’s advances, rejected them, and advised

24 PINELO that his advances were unwelcome.

25

70. JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO was subjected to unwelcome sexual

26 advances, requests for sexual favors or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature by

27 PINELO and GONZALEZ who were placed in a position of authority over JESSICA

28 AI~VAR ADO PANIAM~NIC) hv Defenrtant.~ ~AF.,qAI~ ~ F.NITF.RTAINIMENT
|! COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 12 of 44

1 INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE

2 INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE.

3

71. JESSICA ALVARADO PANEMENO did not welcome GONZALEZ’s advances,

4 rejected them, and advised GONZALEZ that his advances were unwelcome.

5

72. JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO did not welcome PINELO’s advances,

6 rejected them, and advised PINELO that his advances were unwelcome.

7

73. CALENDARIA TURCIOS was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances,

8 requests for sexual favors or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature by PINELO

9 who was placed in a position of authority over CALENDARIA TURCIOS by Defendants

10 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE CORPORATION, and

11 DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE.

12

74. CANDELARIA TURCIOS did not welcome the advances, rejected them, and

13 advised PINELO that his advances were unwelcome.

14

75. TANGE JOHNSON was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for

15 sexual favors or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature by HERNANDEZ who was

16 placed in a position of authority over TANGE JOHNSON by Defendants CAESARS

17 ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE CORPORATION, and DESERT

18 PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE.

19

76. TANGE JOHNSON did not welcome the advances, rejected them, and advised

20 HERNANDEZ that his advances were unwelcome.

21

77. PINELO and GONZALEZ had the power to alter or affect the terms and

22 conditions of the employment of ELINA MASID by having the authority to hire, fire, transfer,

23 schedule and evaluate the performance of ELINA MASID.

24

78. P1NELO and GONZALEZ had the power to alter or affect the terms and

25 conditions of the employment of JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO by having the authority

26 to hire, fire, transfer, schedule and evaluate the performance ofJESSICA ALVARADO

27 PANAMENO.

28
12 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 13 of 44

1

79. HERNANDEZ had the power to alter or affect the terms and conditions of the

2 employment of TANGE JOHNSON by having the authority to hire, fire, transfer, schedule and

3 evaluate the performance of TANGE JOHNSON.

4

80. PINELO had the power to alter or affect the terms and conditions of the

5 employment of CALENDARIA TURCIOS by having the authority to hire, fire, transfer,

6 schedule and evaluate the performance of CANDELARIA TURCIOS.

7

81. Defendants GONZALEZ and PINELO threatened to alter the terms and

8 conditions of Plaintiff-Intervenor ELINA MASID’s employment by purposefully not scheduling

9 ELINA MASID for work, by threatening to fire her and even by threatening her life if ELINA

10 MASID refused their advances.

11

82. Defendants GONZALEZ and PINELO threatened to alter the terms and

12 conditions of Plaintiff-Intervenor JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO’s employment by

13 purposefully not scheduling JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO for work and by

14 threatening to fire her.

15

83. Defendant HERNANDEZ threatened to alter the terms and conditions of

16 Plaintiff-Intervenor TANGE JOHNSON’s employment by threatening to fire her, threatening to

17 change her schedule, and threatening to lower her pay rate.

18

84. Defendant PINELO threatened to alter the terms and conditions of Plaintiff-

19 Intervenor CANDELARIA TURCIOS’s employment by threatening to fire her.

20

85. Said advances were directed at Plaintiff-Intervenors ELINA MASID, JESSICA

21 ALVARADO PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON and CANDELARIA TURCIOS because of

22 Plaintiff-Intervenors’ sex.

23

86. Defendants GONZALEZ and P1NELO responded to Plaintiff-Intervenor ELINA

24 MASID’s rejection of their advances by refusing to schedule EL1NA MASID for work, by

25 threatening to fire her, and by threatening her life.

26

87. Defendants GONZALEZ and PINELO responded to Plaintiff-Intervenor

27 JESSICA LAVARADO PANAMENO’s rejection of their advances by refusing to schedule
28 .TF.R,g|C~A AI,VAR AT)C) PANTAMENT(~ for wnrk and hv thrente.nino tn fire. her
13 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 14 of 44

1

88. Defendant HERNANDEZ responded to Plaintiff-Intervenor TANGE

2 JOHNSON’s rejection of his advances by threatening to fire her, threatening to change her

3 schedule, and threatening to lower her pay rate.

4

89. Defendant PINELO responded to Plaintiff-Intervenor CANDELARIA

5 TURCIOS’s rejection of his advances by threatening to fire her.

6

90. Plaintiff-Intervenor ELINA MASID sustained a tangible economic detriment

7 resulting from the response of Defendants GONZALEZ and PINELO to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s

8 rejection of their demands, because ELINA MASID was purposefully not scheduled for work

9 on numerous occasions.

10

91. Plaintiff-Intervenor JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO sustained a tangible

11 economic detriment resulting from the response of Defendants GONZALEZ and PINELO to

12 Plaintiff-Intervenor’s rejection of their demands, because JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO

13 was purposefully not scheduled for work on numerous occasions.

14

92. Plaintiff-Intervenor TANGE JOHNSON sustained a tangible economic detriment

15 resulting from the response of Defendant HERNANDEZ to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s rejection of

16 his demands, because TANGE JOHNSON missed two (2) weeks of work as a result of

17 Defendant’s illegal conduct.

18

93. Plaintiff-Intervenor ELINA MASID sustained emotional suffering and injury

19 attributable to the sexual advances made by Defendants GONZALEZ and PINELO and the

20 adverse employment action taken by Defendants in response to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s rejection

21 of those advances.

22

94. Plaintiff-Intervenor JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO sustained emotional

23 suffering and injury attributable to the sexual advances made by Defendants GONZALEZ and

24 P1NELO and the adverse employment action taken by Defendants in response to Plaintiff-

25 Intervenor’s rejection of those advances.

26

95. Plaintiff-Intervenor TANGE JOHNSON sustained emotional suffering and injury

27 attributable to the sexual advances made by Defendant HERNANDEZ and the adverse

28
t4 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 15 of 44

1 employment action taken by Defendants in response to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s rejection of those

2 advances.

3

96. Plaintiff-Intervenor CANDELARIA TURCIOS sustained emotional suffering and

4 injury attributable to the sexual advances made by Defendant PINELO and the adverse

5 employment action taken by Defendants in response to Plaintiff-Intervenors rejection of those

6 advances.

7

97. The authority and power of Defendants GONZALEZ, PINELO, and

8 HERNANDEZ to alter the terms and conditions of Plaintiff-Intervenors’ employment was

9 conferred by Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE

10 CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE.

11

98. Defendants GONAZLEZ, PINELO and HERNANDEZ were the agent of

12 Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE

13 CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE

14 for the purpose of making decisions affecting Plaintiff-Intervenors’ employment.

t5

99. All defendants acted with malice and with reckless indifference to Plaintiff-

16 Intervenors’ civil fights and emotional and physical well being.

17

VI. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18 FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND/OR DISCRIMINATION PURSUANT TO N.R.S.

19

613.330

20

(Against All Defendants)

21

100. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

22 paragraphs 1 through 99 above.

23

101. Plaintiff-Intervenors are women and as such are members of a group protected

24 under Nevada Revised Statute (N.R.S.) 613.330 from discrimination on the basis of sex.

25

102. Plaintiff-Intervenors ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO,

26 TANGE JOHNSON, and CANDELARIA TURCIOS were qualified for the jobs they held and

27 currently hold.

28
15 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 16 of 44

1

103. Plaintiff-Intervenors ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO,

2 TANGE JOHNSON, and CANDELARIA TURCIOS were satisfying their respective job

3 requirements.

4

104. Plaintiff-intervenor ELINA MASID’s terms of employment were altered

5 whenever ELINA MASID rejected Defendants GONZALEZ’s and PINELO’s unlawful sexual

6 advances or whenever ELINA MASID did not otherwise tolerate the hostile work environment

7 she was subjected to by Defendants GONZALEZ and PINELO.

8

105. Plaintiff-Intervenor JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO’s terms of

9 employment were altered whenever JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO rejected Defendants

10 GONZALEZ’s and PINELO’s unlawful sexual advances or whenever JESSICA ALVARADO

11 PANAMENO did not otherwise tolerate the hostile work environment she was subjected to by

12 Defendants GONZALEZ and PINELO.

13

106. Plaintiffolntervenor TANGE JOHNSON’s terms of employment were altered

14 whenever TANGE JOHNSON rejected Defendant HERNANDEZ’s unlawful sexual advances

15 or whenever TANGE JOHNSON did not otherwise tolerate the hostile work environment she

I6 was subjected to by Defendant HERNANDEZ.

17

107. Plaintiff-Intervenor CANDELARIA TURCIOS’s terms of employment were

18 altered whenever CANDELARIA TURCIOS rejected Defendant PINELO’s unlawful sexual

19 advances or whenever CANDELARIA TURCIOS did not otherwise tolerate the hostile work

20 environment she was subjected to by Defendant PINELO.

21

108. Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiff-Intervenors was in violation of N.R.S.

22 613.330. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed a complained with the

23 Equal Opportunity Commission, which in turned filed a Complaint against Defendants

24 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE CORPORATION, and

25 DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE.

26

109. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff-Intervenors have

27 sustained and continue to sustain substantial losses in earnings and continue to suffer

28
I6
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 17 of 44

1 humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to their damage in

2 a sum according to proof at trial.

3

110. Defendants’ conduct as described above was willful, despicable, knowing, and

4 intentional; accordingly, Plaintiff-Intervenors are entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary

5 damages in an amount according to proof.

6

VII. FOURTH CLIAM FOR ~LIEF

7

RETALIATION

8

(Pursuant to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

9

against All Defendants)

10

111. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

11 paragraph 1 through 110 above.

12

112. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff-Intervenors engaged in a protected activity

I3 under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by complaining to Employer-Defendants’

14 management about the persistent pattern of unlawful sexual harassment and discrimination

15 against female employees.

t6

113. During the course of ELINA MASID’s employment with Defendants, ELINA

17 MASID complained to Defendants about the unwanted and persistent sexual advances,

18 harassment, and discrimination against ELINA MASID by Defendants GONZALEZ and

19 PINELO. As alleged above, defendants retaliated against ELINA MASID for making these

20 complaints by tolerating GONZALEZ’s and PINELO’s constant sexual harassment towards

21 ELINA MASID, by refusing to schedule her for work and by issuing unwarranted job

22 warning(s).

23

114. During the course ofJESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO’s employment with

24 Defendants, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO complained to Defendants about the

25 unwanted and persistent sexual advances, harassment, and discrimination against JESSICA

26 ALVARADO PANAMENO by Defendants GONZALEZ and PINELO. As alleged above,

27 defendants retaliated against JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO for making these

28
17
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLA1NTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 18 of 44

1 complaints by tolerating GONZALEZ’s and PINELO’s constant sexual harassment towards

2 JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, and by threatening her with immediate termination.

3

115. During the course of TANGE JOHNSON’s employment with Defendants,

4 TANGE JOHNSON complained to Defendants about the unwanted and persistent sexual

5 advances, harassment, and discrimination against TANGE JOHNSON by Defendant

6 HERNANDEZ. As alleged above, defendants retaliated against TANGE JOHNSON for

7 making these complaints by tolerating HERNANDEZ’s constant sexual harassment towards

8 TANGE JOHNSON, and covering up HERNANDEZ’s unlawful conduct.

9

116. During the course of CANDELARIA TURCIOS employment with Defendants,

10 CANDELARIA TURCIOS complained to Defendants about the unwanted and persistent sexual

advances, harassment, and discrimination against CANDELARIA TURCIOS by Defendant

12 PINELO. As alleged above, defendants retaliated against CANDELARIA TURCIOS for

13 making these complaints by tolerating PINELO’s constant sexual harassment towards

14 CANDELARIA TURCIOS, and by refusing to promptly transfer her to another shift in order to

15 avoid contact with PINELO.

16

117. Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiff-Intervenors was in violation of 42 U.S.C. §

17 2000e-3(a). Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed a complained with the

t8 Equal Opportunity Commission, which in turned filed a Complaint against Defendants

19 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE CORPORATION, and

20 DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE.

21

118. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff-Intervenors have

22 sustained and continue to sustain substantial losses in earnings and continue to suffer

23 humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to their damage in

24 a sum according to proof at trial.

25

119. Defendants’ conduct as described above was willful, despicable, knowing, and

26 intentional; accordingly, Plaintiff-Intervenors are entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary

27 damages in an amount according to proof.

28
18 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 19 of 44

1

VIII. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

RETALIATION

3

(Pursuant to N.R.S. § 613.340(a)

4

against All Defendants)

5

120. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

6 paragraph 1 through 119 above.

7

121. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff-Intervenors engaged in a protected activity

8 under Nevada Revised Statutes (N.R.S.) § 613.340(a) by complaining to Employer-Defendants’

9 management about the persistent pattern of unlawful sexual harassment and discrimination

10 against female employees.

11

122. During the course of ELINA MASID’s employment with Defendants, ELINA

12 MASID complained to Employer-Defendants about the unwanted and persistent sexual

13 advances, harassment, and discrimination against ELINA MASID by Defendants GONZALEZ

14 and PINELO. As alleged above, defendants retaliated against ELINA MASID for making these

15 complaints by tolerating GONZALEZ’s and PINELO’s constant sexual harassment towards

16 ELINA MASID, by refusing to schedule her for work and by issuing unwarranted job

17 warning(s).

18

123. During the course of JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO’s employment with

19 Defendants, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO complained to Employer-Defendants about

20 the unwanted and persistent sexual advances, harassment, and discrimination against JESSICA

21 ALVARADO PANAMENO by Defendants GONZALEZ and PINELO. As alleged above,

22 defendants retaliated against JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO for making these

23 complaints by tolerating GONZALEZ’s and PINELO’s constant sexual harassment towards

24 JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, and by threatening her with immediate termination.

25

124. During the course of TANGE JOHNSON’s employment with Employer-

26 Defendants, TANGE JOHNSON complained to Defendants about the unwanted and persistent

27 sexual advances, harassment, and discrimination against TANGE JOHNSON by Defendant

28 VI1R.RNTANIT)EZ As alleged nhc~ve, de.fe.nd~nt~ retaliated a~nin.~t TANI~E _IC~i4NI,~ON for
19
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURC[OS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 20 of 44

I making these complaints by tolerating HERNANDEZ’s constant sexual harassment towards

2 TANGE JOHNSON, and covering up HERNANDEZ’s unlawful conduct.

3

125. During the course ofCANDELARIA TURCIOS employment with Defendants,

4 CANDELARIA TURCIOS complained to Defendants about the unwanted and persistent sexual

5 advances, harassment, and discrimination against CANDELARIA TURCIOS by Defendant

6 PINELO. As alleged above, defendants retaliated against CANDELARIA TURCIOS for

7 making these complaints by tolerating PINELO’s constant sexual harassment towards

8 CANDELARIA TURCIOS, and by refusing to promptly transfer her to another shift in order to

9 avoid contact with PINELO.

10

126. Defendants’ treatment of Plaintiff-Intervenors was in violation ofN.R.S. §

tl 613.330(a). Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed a complained with the

12 Equal Opportunity Commission and received Right to Sue letters.

13

127. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff-Intervenors have

14 sustained and continue to sustain substantial losses in earnings and continue to suffer

15 humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to their damage in

16 a sum according to proof at trial.

17

128. Defendants’ conduct as described above was willful, despicable, knowing, and

I8 intentional; accordingly, Plaintiff-Intervenors are entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary

19 damages in an amount according to proof.

20

IX. SIXTIt CLAIM FOR RELIEF

21

BATTERY

22

(Against All Defendants)

23

129. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

24 paragraph 1 through 128 above.

25

130. Commencing on or about May 15, 2002, Defendant GONZALEZ subjected

26 ELINA MASID to a persistent pattern of unwelcome, offensive and harmful conduct in that:

27

a) Defendant GONZALEZ touched ELINA MASID’s hair on daily basis;

28
20
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 21 of 44

1

b) Defendant GONAZALEZ touched ELINA MASID’s breasts on numerous

2

occasions;

3

c) Defendant GONAZALEZ pushed ELINA MASID against the wall on at least one

4

occasion;

5

131. Commencing on or about May 15, 2002, defendant P1NELO subjected EL1NA

6 MASID to a persistent pattern of unwelcome, offensive and harmful conduct, in that:

7

a) Defendant PINELO touched and/or grabbed ELINA MASID’s hair on several

8

occasions;

9

b) Defendant PINELO grabbed ELINA MASID on several occasions;

10

c) Defendant PINELO forced ELINA MASID to have oral copulation with him on

11

several occasions;

12

d) Defendant PINELO ejaculated onto ELINA MASID on several occasions;

13

e) Defendant PINELO rubbed his genitals on ELINA MASID’s face on several

14

occasions;

15

f) Defendant PINELO pushed ELINA MASID against the wall on at least one

16

occasion;

17

g) Defendant PINELO ripped ELINA MASID’s shirt on at least one occasion.

18

132. Commencing in or about September 2000, Defendant GONZALEZ subjected

19 JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO to a persistent pattern of unwelcome, offensive and

20 harmful conduct in that:

21

a) Defendant GONZALEZ forced JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO to have

22

vaginal and/or oral sex with him on numerous occasions;

23

b) Defendant GONAZELEZ grabbed JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO on

24

numerous occasions.

25

133. Commencing in or about September 2000, Defendant HERNANDEZ subjected

26 TANGE JOHNSON to a persistent pattern of unwelcome, offensive and harmful conduct in

27 that:

28
21
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 22 of 44

1

a) Defendant HERNANDEZ grabbed and/or touched TANGE JOHNSON on several

2

occasions;

3

b) Defendant HERNANDEZ pushed TANGE JOHNSON against the wall on at least

4

one occasion;

5

134. Commencing in or about mid 2001 or 2002, Defendant PINELO subjected

6 CANDELARIA TURCIOS to a persistent pattern of unwelcome, offensive and harmful conduct

7 in that:

8

a) Defendant PINELO placed his arms around CANDERLARIA TURCIOS on at least

9

on occasion;

10

b) Defendant PINELO pushed CANDELARIA TURCIOS against the wall on at least

I1

one occasion;

12

c) Defendant PINELO kissed CANDELARIA TURCIOS’s neck on at least one

13

occasion;

14

d) Defendant PINELO bit CANDELARIA TURCIOS’s neck on at least one occasion;

15

e) Defendant PINELO rubbed his exposed penis onto CANDELARIA TURCIOS

t6

buttocks on at least one occasion.

17

135. Defendants GONAZLEZ, PINELO and HERNANDEZ intended to cause and

18 did cause numerous unwanted, harmful and offensive contact with Plaintiff-Invervenors’

19 persons.

20

136. Plaintiff-Intervenors did not consent to Defendants’ harmful and offensive

21 conduct.

22

137. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct Plaintiff-Intervenors’

23 suffered extreme anguish, emotional and physical pain. These injuries have caused Plaintiff-

24 Intervenors’ to suffer general damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial.

25

138. Defendants actions were done knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent,

26 and Plaintiff-Intervenors are entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined by

27 proof at trial.

28
22 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLA_INTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 23 of 44

1

139. At all times mentioned, Defendants GONZALEZ, PINELO and HERNANDEZ

2 were the employees of defendant CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK

3 PLACE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED,

4 D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE, and while acting within the scope of their employment in the

5 transaction of the business of Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED,

6 PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, and DESERT PALACE

7 INCORPORATED, D.B.A CAESARS PALACE, committed the injuries alleged in this

8 Complaint.

9

X. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

10

AS,S, ,,AULT

11

(Against All Defendants)

12

140. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

13 paragraph 1 through 139 above.

14

141. Commencing on or about May 15, 2002, Defendant GONZALEZ intended to

15 cause and did cause ELINA MASID to suffer apprehension of immediate offensive and harmful

16 contact on numerous occasions.

i7

142. Commencing on or about May 15, 2002, Defendant PINELO intended to cause

18 and did cause ELINA MASID to suffer apprehension of immediate offensive and harmful

19 contact on numerous occasions.

20

143. Commencing in or about September 2000, Defendant GONZALEZ intended to

21 cause and did cause JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO to suffer apprehension of immediate

22 offensive and harmful contact on numerous occasions.

23

144. Commencing in or about September 2000, Defendant HERNANDEZ intended

24 to cause and did cause TANGE JOHNSON to suffer apprehension of immediate offensive and

25 harmful contact on several occasions.

26

145. Commencing in or about mid 2001 or 2002, Defendant PINELO intended to

27 cause and did cause CANDELARIA TURCIOS suffer apprehension of immediate offensive and

28 harmfid contact on at leant nne ncca~inn
23
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAtNTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELAR.IA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 24 of 44

1

146. At all times mentioned, Defendants GONZALEZ, PINELO and HERNANDEZ

2 were the employees of defendant CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK

3 PLACE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED,

4 D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE while acting within the scope of their employment in the

5 transaction of the business of Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED

6 PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and DESERT PALACE

7 INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CASESARS PALACE committed the injuries alleged in this

8 Complaint.

9

XI. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

10

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

11

(Against All Defendants)

12

147. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations contained in

13 paragraph 1 through 146 above.

14

148. Commencing on or about May 15, 2002, Defendant GONZALEZ subjected

15 ELINA MASID to a persistent pattern of unlawful sexual advances during working hours.

16 Defendant GONZALEZ, among other things grabbed and touched ELINA MASID’s hair and

17 breasts, pushed ELINA MASID against the wall, pressured ELINA MASID to kiss him,

18 pressured her to have sexual intercourse with him, and made sexually explicit comments about

19 ELINA MASID’s breasts. ELINA MASID rebuffed defendant GONZALEZ’s advances and

20 refused to have any consensual contact with him.

21

149. Commencing on or about May 15, 2002, Defendant PINELO subjected ELINA

22 MASID to a persistent pattern of unlawful sexual advances during working hours. Defendant

23 PINELO, among other things grabbed and touched ELINA MASID’s hair and body, pushed

24 ELINA MASID against the wall, ripped EL1NA MASID’s shirt, pressured ELINA MASID to

25 have sexual intercourse with him, exposed his genitalia to ELINA MASID, forced ELINA

26 MASID to have oral copulation with him, ejaculated onto ELINA MASID, rubbed his genitals

27 on ELINA MASID’s face, and made sexually explicit comments to ELINA MASID, including

28 h~lt nc~t limited to that he wanted to tee. her have ~exual interc.nnr~e with t~ther female_~_ EI JFNIA
24
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 25 of 44

1 MASID rebuffed defendant GONAZALEZ’s advances and refused to have any consensual

2 contact with him.

3

150. Commencing in or about September 2000, Defendant GONZALEZ subjected

4 JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO to a persistent pattern of unlawful sexual advances

5 during working hours. Defendant GONAZLEZ, among other things, grabbed JESSICA

6 ALVARADO PANAMENO’s body, pressured JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO to have

7 sexual intercourse with him, forced JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO to have vaginal

8 and/or oral sex with him, and made sexually explicit comments to JESSICA ALVARADO

9 PANAMENO. JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO rebuffed defendant GONZALEZ’s

10 advances and refused to have any consensual contact with him.

11

151. Commencing in or about September 2000, Defendant PINELO subjected

12 JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO to a persistent pattern of unlawful sexual advances

13 during working hours. Defendant PINELO, among other things, exposed his genitalia to

14 JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, pressured JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO to

t5 have sexual intercourse with him, and made sexually explicit comments to JESSICA

16 ALVARADO PANAMENO. JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO rebuffed defendant

17 PINEDO’s advances and refused to have any consensual contact with him.

18

152. Commencing in or about September 2000, Defendant HERNANDEZ subjected

19 TANGE JOHNSON to a persistent pattern of unlawful sexual advances during working hours.

20 Defendant HERNANDEZ, among other things, grabbed and touched TANGE JOHNSON,

21 exposed his genitalia to TANGE JOHNSON, pressured TANGE JOHNSON to have sexual

22 intercourse with him, pushed TANGE JOHNSON against the wall, pressured TANGE

23 JOHNSON to look at pornographic magazines, and made sexually explicit comments to

24 TANGE JOHNSON. TANGE JOHNSON rebuffed defendant HERNANDEZ’s advances and

25 refused to have any consensual contact with him.

26

153. Commencing in or about mid 2001 or 2002, Defendant PINELO subjected

27 CANDELARIA TURCIOS to a persistent pattern of unlawful sexual advances during working 28 hnl]r~ l")o.£o.nclnnt PlNI~!.O. nrnnn~ nth~r thlno.~_ ornhhed nnd tol]ehecl CANDEI,ARIA

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 26 of 44

1 TURCIOS, pushed CANDELARIA TURCIOS against the wall, kissed and bit CANDELARIA

2 TURCIOS neck, exposed his genitalia to CANDELARIA TURCIOS, rubbed his genitalia onto

3 CANDELARIA TURCIOS, pressured CANDELARIA TURCIOS to have sexual intercourse

4 with him, and made sexually explicit comments to CANDELIA TURCIOS. CANDELARIA

5 TURCIOS rebuffed defendant PINELO’s advances and refused to have any consensual contact

6 with him.

7

154. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff-Intervenors clearly rejected defendants

8 GONZALEZ’s, PINELO’s and HERNANDEZ’s advances, but defendants ignored the

9 objections. The actions of Defendants GONZALEZ, PINELO and HERNANDEZ were

10 outrageous, intentional, and malicious, and done with reckless disregard of the fact that they

!1 would certainly cause Plaintiff-Intervenors to suffer severe emotional and physical distress.

12

155. As a proximate result of the acts of Defendants GONAZALEZ, PINEDO and

13 HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Intervenors suffered severe emotional distress in the form of fear,

14 nervousness, anxiety, worry, and indignity. The conduct of Defendants GONAZLEZ, PINEDO

15 and HERNANDEZ created a work environment that was extremely detrimental to Plaintiff-

I6 Intervenors’ emotional and physical health, and interfered with Plaintiff-Intervenors’ work

17 performance.

18

156. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff-Intervenors

19 have suffered general damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial.

20

157. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff-

21 Intervenors have not been able to work for various periods of time, and accordingly lost wages

22 in an amount to be determined by proof at trial.

23

158. Defendants’ conduct was done knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent,

24 and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ are entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined by

25 proof at trial.

26

159. At all times mentioned, Defendants GONZALEZ, PINELO and HERNANDEZ

27 were the employees of defendant CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK

28 Pl .ACIC. F.NITF.R TAIN/MI:Z.NIT CC)RPOR ATIC)NI and DF.RF.R T PAl ,ACE ~ORPOR ATICINI.
26
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 27 of 44

1 D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE and while acting within the scope of their employment in the

2 transaction of the business of Employer-Defendants committed the injuries alleged in this

3 Complaint.

4

XII. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

5

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

6

(Against all Defendants)

7

160. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations contained only in

8 paragraph 1 through 30.

9

161. At all times mentioned hereto Defendants GONAZLEZ, PINELO and

10 HERNANDEZ breached their duty of care to Plaintiff-Intervenors by subjecting Plaintiff-

11 Intervenors to a persistent pattern of unlawful sexual advances during working hours.

12 Defendants GONAZLEZ, PINELO and HERNANDEZ, among other things, engaged in

13 negligent physical contact of an extreme sexual nature with Plaintiff-Intevenors and made

14 negligent comments of an extreme sexual nature to Plaintiff-Intervenors.

15

162. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants GONAZALEZ,

16 PINEDO and HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Intervenors suffered severe emotional distress in the

17 form of fear, nervousness, anxiety, worry, and indignity. The conduct of Defendants

18 GONAZLEZ, PINEDO and HERNANDEZ created a work environment that was extremely

19 detrimental to Plaintiff-Intervenors’ emotional and physical health, and interfered with Plaintiff-

20 Intervenors’ work performance.

21

163. At all times mentioned, Defendants GONZALEZ, PINELO and HERNANDEZ

22 were the employees of defendant CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK

23 PLACE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED,

24 D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE and while acting within the scope of their employment as

25 supervisors and in the transaction of the business of Employer-Defendants, when they

26 committed the injuries alleged in this Complaint.

27 ///

28
27
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 28 of 44

1

XIII. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

3

(Against All Defendants)

4

164. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations contained only in

5 paragraphs 1 through 159 above.

6

165. Commencing on or about May 15, 2002, Defendant GONZALEZ subjected

7 ELINA MASID to a persistent pattern of unlawful sexual advances during working hours. On

8 at least one occasion, Defendant GONZALEZ grabbed EL1NA MASID and pushed her against

9 the wall. For a period of several minutes, Defendant GONAZALEZ confined ELINA MASID

10 to a fixed area between the wall and Defendant’s body. Defendant GONZALEZ intended to

11 cause and did cause EL1NA MASID to be confined against her will between the wall and

12 Defendant’ s body.

13

166. Commencing on or about May 15, 2002, Defendant PINELO subjected ELINA

14 MASID to a persistent pattern of unlawful sexual advances during working hours. On at least

15 one occasion, Defendant PINELO grabbed ELINA MASID and pushed her against the wall.

16 For a period of several minutes, Defendant PINELO confined ELINA MASID to a fixed area

17 between the wall and Defendant’s body. Defendant PINELO intended to cause and did cause

18 EL1NA MASID to be confined against her will between the wall and Defendant’s body.

I9

167. Commencing in or about September 2000, Defendant HERNANDEZ subjected

20 TANGE JOHNSON to a persistent pattern of unlawful sexual advances during working hours.

21 On at least one occasion, Defendant HERNANDEZ accosted TANGE JOHNSON in an empty

22 room after entering the room, shutting and locking the only door to the room. Then, defendant

23 HERNANDEZ grabbed TANGE JOHNSON and pushed her against the wall. For a period of

24 several minutes, Defendant HERNANDEZ confined TANGE JOHNSON to a fixed area

25 between the wall and Defendant’s body. Defendant HERNANDEZ intended to cause and did

26 cause TANGE JOHNSON to be confined against her will between the wall and Defendant’s

27 body.

28
28
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 29 of 44

I

168. Commencing in or about mid 2001 or 2002, Defendant PINELO subjected

2 CANDELARIA TURCIOS to a persistent pattern of unlawful sexual advances during working

3 hours. On at least one occasion, Defendant PINELO accosted CANDELARIA TURCIOS in an

4 empty elevator after entering the elevator, closing its doors and stopping it. Then, defendant

5 PINELO grabbed CANDELARIA TURCIOS and pushed her against the wall of the elevator.

6 For a period of several minutes, Defendant PINELO confined CANDELARIA TURCIOS to a

7 fixed area between the wall and Defendant’s body into the closed elevator. Defendant PINELO

8 intended to cause and did cause CANDELARIA TURCIOS to be confined against her will

9 between the wall and Defendant’s body into the closed elevator.

10

169. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants GONZALEZ’s, PINELO’s and

11 HERNANDEZ’s conduct, Plaintiff-Intervenors suffered fright, shock, and extreme mental

12 anguish. Accordingly, Piaintiff-Intervenors have suffered general damages in an amount to be

13 determined by proof at trial.

14

170. Defendants GONAZALEZ, PINELO and HERNANDEZ acted oppressively and

15 maliciously, engaged in despicable conduct with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights

16 and safety of Plaintiff-Intervenors. Plaintiff-Intervenors are therefore entitled to punitive

17 damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

18

171. At all times mentioned, Defendants GONZALEZ, P1NELO and HERNANDEZ

19 were the employees of defendant CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK

20 PLACE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED,

21 D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE, and while acting within the scope of their employment in the

22 transaction of the business of Employer-Defendants, committed the injuries alleged in this

23 Complaint.

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28
29
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 30 of 44

1

XIV..E.LEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

NEGLIGENCE

3

(against Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK

4 PLACE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED,

5

D.B.A CAESARS PALACE)

6

172. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations contained only in

7 paragraphs I through 30 and paragraphs 159 through 163 above.

8

173. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT

9 INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and DESERT

10 PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE, had a duty to use reasonable care

1t in the hiring and in supervising the conduct of its employees.

12

174. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT

13 INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and DESERT

14 PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE, knew, or in the exercise of

15 reasonable care should have known, that Defendants GONZALEZ, PINELO, and

16 HERNANDEZ engaged in a persistent pattern of unlawful sexual advances during working

17 hours towards Plaintiff-Intervenors and other female employees, and that said unlawful sexual

18 advances involved the risk of harm to other employees such as Plaintiff-intervcnors.

19

175. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT

20 INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and DESERT

21 PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE, knew or should have known that

22 that Defendants GONZALEZ, PINELO, and HERNANDEZ subjected Plaintiff-Intervenors to

23 sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and sex-based discrimination. Specifically,

24 Plaintiff-Intervenors informed and complained numerous times to Defendants’ Human

25 Resources Manager, Sarah Conte about GONZALEZ’s, PINELO’s, and HERNANDEZ’s

26 unlawful conduct.

27

176. Despite Plaintiff-intervenors numerous complaints to Defendants through

28 I’)efendant.~’ Hnrnan Re~cmree~ Manager Sarah ~onte_ F)efendant~ C~AF~RARS
30 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 31 of 44

1 ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT

2 CORPORATION and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE

3 breached their duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff-Intervenors by negligently and carelessly

4 failing to respond to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s complaints, and by failing to investigate, reprimand,

5 suspend, and/or terminate the employment of Defendants GONZALEZ, PINELO and

6 HERNANDEZ.

7

177. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT

8 INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and DESERT

9 PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE’s negligence and carelessness,

10 Plaintiff-Intervenors were subjected to a persistent pattern on unwelcome, harmful and

11 offensive conduct by Defendants GONZALEZ, PINELO and HERNANDEZ.

12

178. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ CAESARS

13 ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT

14 CORPORATION and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A. CAESARS PALACE’s

15 negligence and carelessness, Plaintiff-Intervenors have sustained injuries and damages as

16 described in this Complaint.

17

179. Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, PARK PLACE

18 ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and DESERT PALACE INCORPORATED, D.B.A.

19 CAESARS PALACE had advance knowledge of Defendants GONZALEZ’ s, PINELO’s and

20 HERNANDEZ’s unlawful conduct and employed them and/or failed to supervise them with a

21 conscious disregard of the rights or safety of Plaintiff-Intervenors.

22

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenors respectfully pray that this Court:

23

Award Plaintiff-Intervenors compensatory damages including lost wages and benefits

24 according to proof;

25

Award Plaintiff-Intervenors mental and emotional distress damages for their emotional

26 suffering and related medical and therapeutic expenses according to proof;

27

Award Plaintiff-Intervenors civil penalties as provided by statute;

28

Award Plaintiff-fnterve.nc~ra nl~nitive and exemnlzrv darnaoeg ne~cordino tn nrc~t3f’-

31

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO

PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 32 of 44

I

Award Plaintiff-Intervenors’ attorney fees and costs, including expert witness fees,

2 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

3

Award Plaintiff-Intervenors prejudgment interest on all amounts claimed; and

4

Award Plaintiff-Intervenors any other relief that this Court may deem proper.

5 DATED: S" /0-(-)~

LAW OFFICES OF FEDERICO C. SAYRE

6

7

8

//F/¢derico Castelan Sayre

~/~golanda M. Medina

9

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors

10

!1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
32 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 33 of 44

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

3

Plaintiff-Intervenors demand a trial by jury on all claims for relief in this Complaint.

4 DATED:

LAW OFFICES OF FEDERICO C. SAYRE

5

6

7

F co Castelan Sayre

Yglanda M. Medina

8

Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors

9

10

1I

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
33 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO
PANAMENO, TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 34 of 44

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
3 I am employed in the County of Orange, State of Califomia. I am over the age of 18 and
4 not a party to this action. My business address is 900 North Broadway, 4th Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701.
5 On May 10, 2005, I served the foregoing document, entitled, DECLARATION OF
6 YOLANDA M. MEDINA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE on the interested parties to this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes
7 addressed as follows:

8

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

9 X BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm’s practice of collection and processing
I0 correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California, in the ordinary course of
11 business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in
12 affidavit.

13

BY FAX: I transmitted the foregoing document by fax transmission form (949) 721-8910 to

the fax numbers indicated on the attached mailing list. The transmission was reported as complete

14 and without error on the transmission report, which was properly issued by the transmitting fax machine.

15 X__ FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada that I

16 am employed in the office of attorneys who intend to comply with Local Rule IA 10-2 for

admission to practice in United States District Court, District of Nevada, at whose direction the t7 service was made.

18 __ BY FEDERAL EXPRESS MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm’s practice of collection
19 and processing correspondence for express mailing, and mailed a copy according to such practice..

20

EXECUTED on May 10, 2005, at San Ana, California.

21

22

)~L~

23 Marina Gil
24

25

26

27

28 4

Law offices of: DECLARATION OF YOLANDA M. MEDINA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

Fcderico Castelan Sayre

INTERVENE

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 35 of 44

1

SERVICE LIST

2

CASE NO. CV-5-05-0427-LRH-PAL

3 Anna Y. Park 4 Cherry Marie Rojas
Gregory L. McClinton 5 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSSION 6 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90012 7 Telephone: (213) 894-1053 8 Facsimile: (213) 894-1301

Attorneys for Plaintiff, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

9

10 Veronica Arechederra-Hall LITTLER MENDELSON
11 3930 Howard Hughes Parkway, #200 12 Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
Telephone: (702) 862-8800 13 Facsimile: (702) 862-8811

Attorneys for DESERT PALACE d.b.a CAESARS PALACE, CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT

14

15 Matthew Q. Callister 16 CALLISTER & REYNOLDS
823 So. Sixth Street 17 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: (702) 385-3343 18 Facsimile: (702) 385-2899
19

Plaintiffs’ Local Counsel

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

Law Om¢es of: DECLARATION OF YOLANDA M. MEDINA 1N SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

Federico Castelan Sayre

INTERVENE

Filed 06t16/2005 Page 36 of 44

1 Federico Castelan Sayre, CA SBN 67420

Yolanda M. Medina, CA SBN 222273 2 LAW OFFICES OF FEI)ERICO C. SAYRE

900 North Broadway, 4th Floor 3 Santa Ana, California 92701

4 Telephone: (714) 550-9117 Facsimile: (714) 550-9125

5

Matthew Q. Callister, SBN 1396

6 CALLISTER & REYNOLDS

7

823 So. 6th Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

8 Telephone: (702) 385-3343 Facsimile: (702) 385-2899
9 Local Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenors

10 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenors ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO,

tl

TANGE JOHNSON AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS

I2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 15 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

16

Plaintiffs

17

Vs.

18

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation;

19

PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation;

20 and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

21

Defendants.

CASE NO. CV-S-05-0427-LRH-PAL
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO CASTELAN SAYRE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

22

23

I, Federico Castelan Sayre, hereby assert and declare as follows:

24

I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice law before the United States

25 District Court, Central District of the State of California and other districts in California. I am
26 the owner of the Law Offices of Federico Castelan Sayre and the attorney of record for Elina 27
Masid, Jessica Alvarado Panameno, Tange Johnson and Candelaria Turcios, who seek to 28

lF.aewdeOrifcfoiceCsaos1te2lDanESCaLyArRe ATION OF FEDELREICAOVCEATSOTEILNATNERSAVYERNEEIN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

’ Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL ooj~l~lll~,l ~ ~aoe~7 of 44

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 38 of 44

1 intervene in this action. I am not admitted to practice in the State of Nevada nor in the United

2 States District Court, District of Nevada. All of the facts in this declaration are set forth based
3 upon my personal knowledge.
4 2. I will comply with Local Rule IA 10-2 to seek admission to practice in this
5 particular case within 10 days of the filing of this motion to intervene.
6 3. Yolanda M. Medina is an associate attorney at the Law Offices of Federico
7 Castelan Sayre and is also one of the attorneys of record for Plaintiffs-in-intervention, Elina
8 Masid, Jessica Atvarado Panameno, Tange Johnson and Candelaria Turcios.
9 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada that the
10 foregoing is true and correctt./
11
Executed this y’//’~ay of May 2005, Santa Ana, California. 12

13

14 15

-- re

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

L~w ona~es or: DECLARATION OF FEDERICO CASTELAN SAYRE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

Fedcrico Castelan Sayre

LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 39 of 44

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE

3 I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
4 not a party to this action. My business address is 900 North Broadway, 4th Floor, Santa Ana, California 92701.

5

On May 10, 2005, I served the foregoing document, entitled, DECLARATION OF

6 FEDERICO C. SAYRE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE on the interested parties to this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes
7 addressed as follows:

8

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

9 X BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm’s practice of collection and processing
10 correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Aria, Califomia, in the ordinary course of
11 business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in
12 affidavit.

13

BY FAX: I transmitted the foregoing document by fax transmission form (949) 721-8910 to

the fax numbers indicated on the attached mailing list. The transmission was reported as complete

14 and without error on the transmission report, which was properly issued by the transmitting fax machine.

15 X_._ FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada that I

16 am employed in the office of attorneys who intend to comply with Local Rule tA 10-2 for

admission to practice in United States District Court, District of Nevada, at whose direction the 17 service was made.

18 __ BY FEDERAL EXPRESS MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm’s practice of collection
19 and processing correspondence for express mailing, and mailed a copy according to such practice..

20

21

EXECUTED on May ~ , 2005, at ~,~ata Ana, California.
,I

22

23

~,/k/M~a ail

24

25

26

27

28

offices or: DECLARATION OF FEDERICO CASTELAN SAYRE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

Federico Castelan Sayre

LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 40 of 44

1

SERVICE LIST

2

CASE NO. CV-5-05-0427-LRH-PAL

3 Anna Y. Park

4

Cherry Marie Rojas Gregory L. McClinton

5 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSSION
6 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90012 7 Telephone: (213) 894-1053

Facsimile: (213) 894-1301

Attomeys for Plaintiff, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

9

10 Veronica Arechederra-Hall

11

LITTLER MENDELSON 3930 Howard Hughes Parkway, #200

12 Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 Telephone: (702) 862-8800

13 Facsimile: (702) 862-8811

Attorneys for DESERT PALACE d.b.a CAESARS PALACE, CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT

14

15 Matthew Q. Callister 16 CALLISTER & REYNOLDS
823 So. Sixth Street 17 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: (702) 385-3343 18 Facsimile: (702) 385-2899
19

Plaintiffs’ Local Counsel

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

Law omc~ or: DECLARATION OF FEDERICO CASTELAN SAYRE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

Federico Castelan Sayre

LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL

06,16/2005 Page 41 of 44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10

1I

12 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
13
Plaintiffs 14
Vs.
15
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, 16 INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation;
PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT
17 CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation;
and DOES 1-10 inclusive, 18
Defendants.
19

CASE NO. CV-S-05-0427-LRH-PAL
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MOTION TO INTERVENE

20 After consideration of the briefs and all other matters presented to the Court:

21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion of Elina Masid, Jessica Alvarado

22 Panameno, Tange Johnson and Candelaria Turcios to intervene in this action is GRANTED.

23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

24

D The complaint-in-intervention of Elina Masid, Jessica Alvarado Panameno, Tange

25 Johnson and Candelaria Turcios, which is attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Yolanda
M. Medina filed in support of the motion to intervene, shall be deemed served and filed as of the 26
date of service of this order to ALL parties.

27

OR

28

Law Offices of: Federico Castetan Sayre

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
I ~DocsLMASID, ELINA et al ,,. CAESARS PALACE et aI~PLEADINGSXPtoposed Order re motion Io inlerven¢ doc

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL ~l)li~lil110 I~l 01d 06/16/2005 Page 42 of 44

I

I,

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 43 of 44

1

Elina gasid, Jessica Alvarado Panameno, Tange Johnson and Candelaria Turcios

2 shall file and serve their Complaint-In-Intervention on or before 3

4 Dated"
5

6

7

8

Honorable Peggy A. Leen

United States District Court Magistrate

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Law Offices of: Federico Castelan Sayre

2 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
I:~¢BLMASID, EL[NA ~ al v CAESARS PALACE ¢t alXPLEADINGS~Proposed Order re motion to intervene doc

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-LRL Document 15 Filed 06/16/2005 Page 44 of 44

1

SERVICE LIST

2

CASE NO. CV-5-05-0427-LRH-PAL

3 Anna Y. Park 4 Cherry Marie Rojas
Gregory L. McClinton
5 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSSlON
6 255 East Temple Street, 4m Floor
Los Angeles, California 90012 7 Telephone: (213) 894-1053
8 Facsimile: (213) 894-1301

Attorneys for Plaintiff, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

9

10 Veronica Arechederra-Hall

11

LITTLER MENDELSON 3930 Howard Hughes Parkway, #200

12 Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 Telephone: (702) 862-8800

13 Facsimile: (702) 862-8811

Attorneys for DESERT PALACE d.b.a CAESARS PALACE, CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT

14

15 Matthew Q. Callister 16 CALLISTER & REYNOLDS
823 So. Sixth Street 17 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: (702) 385-3343 18 Facsimile: (702) 385-2899
19

Plaintiffs’ Local Counsel

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
Law Offices of: Fedenco Castelan Sayre

4 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
I:kDoc~,A~ID, ELrNA el ~1 v. CAESARS PALACE et aIWLEADINGSkPropo.~d Order re motion to inlervene doc

 </s> Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 138 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 1 of 7

FILED

RECEivED

ENTERED

SEiMDON

COU'ISEljPAR11f.S OF RlCORD

2

E~

3

CL US "'''JoT L'I~\,K

~-1:.';.l.1· )'\.·Icv \~lJi 1\

tJISTt(iCT i,}F ~jb;':'.DA

4

1 8Y

DEP'JTY

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

* * *

9 U.S. EQUAl" EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUlliTY COMMISSION,

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

v.

)

12

)

CAESARS :NTERTAINMENT,

)

13 INCORPOR ATED, a Delaware Corporation, )

PARK PLA.' :E ENTERTAINMENT

)

14 CORI'O RATION, :l Delaware Corporation and)

DOES 1-10. inclus:ive,

)

15

)

Defendants.

)

16

-------)

)

17 ELINA MA:·,ID, JESSICA ALVARADO )

PANAMEN), TANGE JOHNSON and

)

18 CANDELARIA TURCIOS,

)

)

19

Plaintiffs/Intervenors,

)

)

20 v.

)

)

21 CAESARS INTERTAINMENT,

)

INCORPORO\TED. a Delaware Corporation, )

22 PARK PLA( 'E ENTERTAINMENT

)

CORPORA', ION, a Delaware Corporation; )

23 DESERT I'lLACE INC., a Nevada

)

Corporation. dba CAESARS PALACE; JUAN)

24 GONZALEi,; DANIEL PINELO; RICARDO )

HERNA~D: :Z; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, )

25

)

Defendants.

)

26

-------)

02:05-CV-00427-LRH (PAL) ORDER

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 138 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 2 of 7

1

Presently before the court is Juan Gonzalez's ("Gonzalez") Motion for Summary Judgment

2 (# 108'). Pll.intiffslIntervenors Elina Masid, Jessica Alvarado Panameno, Tange Johnson and

3 Candelaria 1 urcios (collectively, "Plaintiffs/Intervenors") filed an opposition (# 118), and Gonzalez

4 replied (# I: 8).

5 I. Factualli:ackground

6

This IS a sexual harassment and retaliation action brought by the United States Equal

7 Employmen' Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

8 1964. Plailll iffs/Intervenors intervened in this action by filing a motion to intervene (# 3) on May

9 11,2005. Tile court granted the motion and Plaintiffs/Intervenors filed a Complaint in Intervention

10 (# 15) on JUlie 16,2005.

II

The j:)ur Plaintiffs/Intervenors have been employed by Caesars during the time periods

12 relevant to t},is litigation. Gonzalez commenced his employment with Park Place entertainment on

13 June 5, 2000. and was placed on administrative leave on November 22, 2002. Gonzalez was

14 formally t<!ITllinated on December 27, 2002. During his employment, Gonzalez maintained a

15 supervisory position over Plaintiffs/Intervenors.

16

Plain iff/Inkrvenor Tange Johnson filed charges of sexual harassment with the EEOC and

17 Nevada Eqwl Rights Commission ("NERC") on March 23, 2001. Plaintiffs/Intervenors Elina

18 Masid, Jessie a Alvarado Panameno, and Candelaria Turcious filed charges of discrimination and

19 sexual harass ment with the EEOC and NERC on November 18, 2002. In June., 2004,

20 Plaintiffs'iImervenors' attorney infonmed them that NERC had closed their filt: and forwarded their

21 complaints te· the EEOC. Plaintiffs/Intervenors followed the EEOC's instructions for requesting a

22 right to sue ktter, but never received one from the EEOC. Following an investigation, the EEOC

23 filed suit on J,.1arch :ll, 2005.

24

25 'Refe,; to the court's docket number.
26 2

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 138 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 3 of 7

1

In tl,eir complaint in intervention, PlaintiffslIntervenors have asserted both state and federal

2 claims of se wal harassment and retaliation along with state tort claims for battc,ry, assault,

3 intentional i lfliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, false

4 imprisonme1lt, and negligence.

5 II. Legltl SI andard

6

Sum nary judgment is appropriate only when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to

7 interrogatoriGs, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

8 genuine issu.: as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

9 law." Fed. I:. Civ. P. 56(c). In assessing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence, together

10 with all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom, must be read in th(~ light most favorable

11 to the party <"pposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

12 587 (l986):~ounty o/Tuolumne v. Sonora Cmty. Hosp., 236 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2001).

13

The 110ving party bears the burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion, along

14 with evidenc ~ showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

15 477 U.S. 31", 323 (1986). On those issues for which it bears the burden of proof. the moving party

16 must make a showing that is "sufficient for the court to hold that no reasonabk trier of fact could

17 find other th In for the moving party." Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir.

18. 1986). See {.Iso Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1141 (C.D.Cal. 2001). For those

19 issues where the moving party will not have the burden of proof at trial, the movant must point out

20 to the court· that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Catrett.

21 477 U.S. at :25.

22

In or(ler to successfully rebut a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must

point to faw supported by the record which demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Reese v.

24 Jefferson Sci· Dist No. 14.1,208 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2000). A "material fact" is a fact "that might

25 affect the ou ~ome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

26 3

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 138 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 4 of 7

242,248 (1 (186). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, summary

2 judgment is !10t appropriate. See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983). A dispute

3 regarding a material fact is considered genuine '"if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

4 return a verc ict for the nonmoving party." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. The mere existence ofa

5 scintilla of e',idence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient to establish a genuine

6 dispute; ther:~ must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff. See id. at

7 252.

8 III. Discus; ion

9

The i,sues raised in Gonzalez's motion are virtually identical to those raised by co-

lO defendant D,miel Pi-nelo in his Motion for Summary Judgment (# 25). Therefore, the disposition of

II the present notion is largely controlled by the court's April 25. 2005, order. In the present motion,

12 Gonzalez is:eeking to dismiss Plaintiffs'/Intervenors' statutory claims because Gonzalez is not an

13 employer. V'ith respect to Plaintiffs'/Intervenors' state law claims, Gonzalez argues that they

14 should be di!:missed due to the expiration of the statute oflimitations.

15

A. S late and Federal Statutory Claims

16

Plain iffs' /Intervenors' first five claims for relief allege violations of Title VIJ of the Civil

17 Rights Act 0 1964,42 U.S.c. §§ 2000 et seq.. and sections 613.330 and 613.340(a) of the Nevada

18 Revised StatHtes, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 613.330. 613.340(a). See (Comp1. in Intervention.) The court

19 has previous i y determined that an individual employee cannot be held liable under Title VII or

20 sections 613.130 and 613.340(a) of the Nevada Revised Statutes. (April 25, 2005, Order (# 61) at

21 5-6.) Howe\ ,~r. Plaintiffs/Intervenors argue that Gonzalez can be held liable under the state and

22 federal statuks because he had supervisory authority over Plaintiffs/Intervenors.

23

Plainllffs/lntervenors are mistaken. Although some courts agree with

24 Plaintiffs'/In':rvenors' position, see. e.g. Tafi)ya v. Adams, 612 F.Supp. 1097, 1104-05 (D. Colo.

25 1985), the Nil1th Circuit, in Miller v. Maxwell's Inl 'lIne., 991 F.2d 583,587-88 (9th Cir. 1993),

26
4

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 138 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 5 of 7

detennined 1aat individual defendants, including supervisory level employees, cannot be held liable

2 for damages under Title VII. In making this detennination, the Ninth Circuit stated, "[n]o

3 employer wi I allow supervisory or other personnel to violate Title VII when til(: (,mployer is liable

4 for the Title VII violation. An employer that incurred civil damages because one of its employees

5 believes he (an violate Title VII with impunity will quickly correct that employee's erroneous

6 belief." [d. <It 588. Therefore, the court finds that Gonzalez cannot be held liable for an alleged

7 violation of Title VII.

8

Simi i arly, the court finds that Gonzalez, as a supervisory level employee, cannot be held

9 individually liable for violations of sections 613.330 and 613.340(a) of the Nevada Revised

10 Statutes. As the court has previously recognized, the issue of whether a supervisor can be held

11 liable underections 613.330 and 613.340(a) is an issue of first impression. see (April 25, 2005,

12 Order (# 61) Ther<-fore, the task of this court is to predict how the Nevada Supreme Court would

13 decide the is:me. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Grunwald, 400 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cif.

14 2005) (citing Walker v. City o{Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1125 (9th Cif. 2001)). Because the

15 Nevada Supr.,me Court often looks to federal courts for guidance in discrimination cases, Pope v.

16 Motel 6, 114 P.3d 277, 280 (Nev. 2005), this court predicts that the Nevada Supreme Court would

17 follow the Ni 11th Circuit's decision in Miller. According, the court finds that Gonzalez cannot be

18 held individually liable for the alleged violation of section 613.330 and 613.340Ia).'

19 B. State TOll Claims

20

Plaint iffs/Intervenors have brought a number of tort claims against Gonzalez including

21 battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional

22 distress, false imprisonment, and negligence. Gonzalez seeks to dismiss these claims as time-

23 barred under '>/c\'ada's statute of limitations. In filCt, the parties do not dispute that

24

25

'To th, extent Plaintiffs/Intervenors wish to amend their Complaint in Intervention to name Gonzalez as a defendant, 11 his official capacity, Plaintiffs/Intervenors should file a motion in compliance with the Federal

26 Rules of Civil I'rocedure and Local Rule 15-1.
5

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 138 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 6 of 7

1 Plaintiffs' lIn I ervenors' state law tort claims are barred by the statute oflimitations. See Nev. Rev,

2 Stat. § 11.191)(4). Nevertheless, Plaintiffs/Intervenors oppose Gonzalez's motion for summary

3 judgment ar!.uing that this court should equitably toll the limitations period,

4

"[I]n;ituations 'where the danger of prejudice to the defendant is absent. and the interests

5 of justice so "equire, equitable tolling of the limitations period may be appropriate,'" Sieno v.

6 Employers I"s. Co. (){Nevada, 111 P.3d 1107, 1112 (Nev, 2005) (quoting Azer v. Connell,306

7 F.3d 930, 93, (9th Cir. 2002», Nevada courts use six nonexclusive factors in determining whether

8 equitable toll ing should be applied: (l) the diligence of the claimant; (2) the claimant's knowledge

9 of the relevaJ,t facts; (3) the claimant's reliance on authoritative statements by the administrative

10 agency that misled the claimant about the nature of the claimant's rights; (4) any deception or false

11 assurances OJ the part of the employer against whom the claim is made; (5) the prejudice to the

12 employer thai would actually result from delay during the time that the limitations period is tolled;

13 , (6) and any olher equitable considerations appropriate in the particular case. Copeland, 673 P2d at

14 492.

15

Here, the issues raised by Plaintiffs/Intervenors with respect to equitable tolling are

16 identical to tr'ose previously raised with respect to co-defendant Daniel Pinelo', Motion for

17 Summary Jucgment (# 25). Accordingly, the court finds the reasoning in its April 25, 2005, Order

18 (# 61) equall: applicable to the present motion. For the reasons stated in that order, the court finds

19 that equitable tolling is not warranted in this case. See (April 25, 2005, Order (# 61).); see also

20 Arnold v. Um led Stales, 816 F.2d 1306, 1312-13 (9th Cir. 1987) (declining to equitably toll the

21 limitations pc "iod for tort claims, filed pursuant to California law, while the Plaintiff pursued her

22 Title VII rem ·dies)3 Therefore, there is no genuine issue of material fact that

23

24

lIn the present motion, Plaintiffs/Intervenors assert that the policy against claim splitting requires this court to egu <:ably toll the statute of limitations, However, as previously stated by the court,

25 Plaintiffsllnter"enors could have filed their state causes of action in state court and sought a stay pending the
outcome of th ., EEOC and NERC investigations. If Plaintiffsllntervenors had purwed this route, they

26 ultimately coui;] have sought a consolidation of the two cases. 6

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 138 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 7 of 7

Plaintiffs'flr tervenors' state law causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations.

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Gonzalez's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 108) is

3 hereby GRA \JTED.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DA1 !JD ,m,t?';,y ofS,~'mhcr, 2006~

6

7

LARRY R. HICKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 7

 </s> Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 141-1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 1 of 6

1 Anna Y. Park, CA SBN 164242 Victor Viramontes, CA SBN 214158
2 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
3 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012
4 Telephone: (213) 894-1083 Facsimile: (213) 894-1301
5
Connie Liem TX SBN, 791113 6 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 7 401 B St., Suite 510
San Diego, CA. 92018 8 Telephone: (619) 557-7284
Facstmile: (619) 557-7274
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
13

14 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 15 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

16

Plaintiff,

17

v.

18 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT,

19

INC., et. al., DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE,

20

21

Defendants, and

22 ELINA MASID, et. al.,

23

Plaintiff Intervenors.

24

) CASE NO.: CV-S-05-0427-LRH-PAL ) ) )
) EEOC'S SECOND ) AMENDED COMPLAINT ) -CIVIL RIGHTS ) SEX HARASSMENT AND } RETALIATION }
} ) } (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.} } } DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ) }
}
}

25

NATURE OF THE ACTION

26

This is a sexual harassment and retaliation action brought by the United States Equal

27 Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission" or "Plaintiff'), under Title VII

28 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to correct unlawful employment practices on

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 141-1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 2 of 6

1 the basis of sex and to provide appropriate reliefto the Charging Parties: Jessica Alvarado,

2 Candelaria Turcios, Elina Masid, Maribel Mendoza, Tange Johnson (collectively referred

3 to hereafter as "the Charging Parties"), and a class of similarly situated individuals, who

4 were adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that "the Charging

5 Parties" and other similarly situated individuals were sexually harassed or subjected to sex-

6 based harassment during their employment with Defendants: Caesar's Entertainment, Inc.,

7 Park Place Entertainment Corp., Desert Palace, Inc., Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., Harrah's

8 Operating Company, Inc., Caesar's World, Inc., and Caesar's Palace Corp., d/b/a Caesar's

9 Palace ("Defendant Employers"). The Charging Parties, and other similarly situated

I0 individuals were subjected to a hostile work environment perpetuated by Defendants'

11 supervisor(s) and co-workers. The Commission also alleges that the Charging Parties and

12 other similarly situated individuals who had complained of the harassment by supervisors

13 were subjected to retaliation in the form of demotion, loss ofwages, over-scrutiny, further

14 harassment, discipline or discharge.

15

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16

I. Jurisdictionofthis Court is invoked pursuantto28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

17 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to §§706(f)( 1) and (3) and

18 707 ofTitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and

19 (3) and pursuant to §102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §§1981a.

20

2. The employment practices alleged herein to be unlawful were committed

21 within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the State ofNevada.

22

3. Prior to institution ofthis lawsuit, the Commission's representatives attempted

23 to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary

24 compliance with Title VII through informal methods of conciliation, conference and

25 persuasion within the meaning of §§706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.,

26 §§2000e-5(f)( 1) and (3). All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been

27 fulfilled.

28 II

-2-

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 141-1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 3 of 6

1

PARTIES

2

4. Plaintiff is an agency of the United States of America charged with the

3 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to

4 bring this action under §§706(f)(l) and (3) and 707 ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C., §§ 2000e-5(f)(l)

5 and (3) and 2000e-6(e).

6

5. It is alleged on information and belief that the named Desert Palace, Inc., (a

7 Nevada Corp.) dba Caesar's Palace is a privately held company and a wholly owned

8 subsidiary ofCaesar's Palace, Corp., (a Delaware Corp.). Caesars Palace, Corp. is a wholly

9 owned subsidiary of Caesar's World, Inc. (a Florida Corp.). Caesar's World, Inc., is

10 currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of Harrah's Operating Company, Inc. Harrah's

11 Entertainment, Inc. (a Delaware Corp.) is the parent company of Harrah's Operating

12 Company, Inc. (a Delaware Corp.).

13

6. It is alleged on information and belief that the named Harrah's Entertainment,

14 Inc., and Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., are successor entities and/or parent companies

15 of Caesar's Entertainment, Inc., Park Place Entertainment, Corp. and Desert Palace, Inc.

16

7. At all relevant times, "Defendant Employers," have continuously been and are

17 now doing business in the State of Nevada, County of Clark, and City of Las Vegas,

18 Nevada.

19

8. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of "Defendant

20 Employers," sued as DOES 1 through 10, inclusively, and therefore Plaintiff sues said

21 "Defendant Employers" by such fictitious names. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the

22 complaint to name the DOE "Defendant Employers" individually or collectively as they

23 become known. Plaintiff alleges that each of the "Defendant Employers" named as DOES

24 was in some manner responsible for the acts and omissions alleged herein and Plaintiffwill

25 amend the complaint to allege such responsibility when same has been ascertained by

26 Plaintiff.

27

9. It is further alleged on information and belief that the named and unnamed

28 defendants in the complaint are mere alter egos of the "Defendant Employers." The

-3-

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 141-1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 4 of 6

1 remaining Defendants are properly named in the complaint.

2

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

3 attributable to "Defendant Employers," each acting as a successor, agent, employee or

4 under the direction and control ofthe others, except as specifically alleged otherwise. Said

5 acts and failures to act were within the scope of such agency and/or employment, and each

6 "Defendant Employer" participated in, approved and/or ratified the unlawful acts and

7 omissions by other "Defendant Employers" complained ofherein. Whenever and wherever

8 reference to any act in this Complaint to any act by a defendant employer or "Defendant

9 Employers," such allegations and reference shall also be deemed to mean the acts and

10 failures to act of each "Defendant Employer" acting individually, jointly and/or severally.

11

11. At all relevant times, "Defendant Employers" have continuously been

12 employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of§§ 701 (b), (g)

13 and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C., §§ 2000e-1(b), (g) and (h) and§§ 11(b), (g), and (h).

14

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

15

12. Since on or about January 1, 2000, to the present date, "Defendant

16 Employers" have engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facility in Las Vegas,

17 Nevada in violation of §§703(a), 704(a), and 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.,

18 §§2000e- et. seq. The unlawful sexual harassment and sex based harassment in the form of

19 physical and verbal harassment directed at the Charging Parties and other similarly situated

20 individual women impacted the terms and conditions of their employment and created a

21 hostile working environment at "Defendant Employers." These practices also included the

22 retaliation against and/or termination of the Charging Parties and other similarly situated

23 individuals for having complained about the sexually hostile work environment.

24

13. The impact ofthe aforementioned conduct deprived the Charging Parties and

25 other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise

26 adversely impacted their employment status because of their sex and in retaliation for

27 opposing discriminatory practices or engaging in a protected activity that resulted in adverse

28 employment action.

-4-

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 141-1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 5 of 6

1

14. The unlawful employment practices complained ofabove were and are willful

2 within the meaning of§§706(f)(l) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S. C., §§2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

3

15. The unlawful employment practices complained ofabove were intentional and

4 caused the Charging Parties and other similarly situated individuals to suffer emotional

5 distress.

6

16. "Defendant Employers" have acted with malice orreckless indifference to the

7 federally protected rights ofthe Charging Parties and other similarly situated individuals by

8 subjecting them to harassment consisting of sexually charged conduct, forced vaginal sex,

9 attempted sodomy, forced oral sex, unwelcomed touching, derogatory statements, and

10 obscene and vulgar language. Women were openly asked by supervisor(s) to perform acts

11 of a sexual nature as well as subjected to other derogatory and obscene statements. When

12 the Charging Parties complained to "Defendant Employers" about the harassment they and

13 other similar situated individuals were being subjected to, theirrequests were either ignored

14 or they were subjected to further harassment. The Charging Parties and other similarly

15 situated individuals were also subject to retaliation for opposing discrimination or engaging

16 in a protected activity resulting in an adverse employment action that harmed them.

17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

18

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

19

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining "Defendant Employers," its officers,

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

21 engaging in any employment practices that discriminate on the basis of sex and/or from

22 engaging in unlawful retaliation;

23

B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining "Defendant Employers," their officers,

24 successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from

25 engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex;

26

C. Order "Defendant Employers" to institute and carry out policies, practices and

27 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females which eradicate the

28 effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices;

-5-

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 141-1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 6 of 6

1

D. Grant a judgment requiring "Defendant Employers" to pay the Charging

2 Parties and other similarly situated individuals appropriate back pay, front pay,

3 compensatory damages and benefits in an amount to be determined at trial including

4 prejudgment interest;

5

E. Order "Defendant Employers" to make the Charging Parties and other

6 similarly situated individuals whole by providing affirmative relief necessary to eradicate

7 the effects of its unlawful practices including, but not limited to, payment of compensatory

8 damages to Charging Parties and other similarly situated individuals and/or rightful place

9 employment;

10

F. Order "Defendant Employers" to pay Charging Parties and other similarly

11 situated individuals punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

12

G. Award the Commission its costs in this action; and

13

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

14 the public interest.

15

JURYDEMAND

16

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

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

26

255 E. Temple Street, 4th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90012

27

28

-6-

 </s> Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 99 Filed 06/14/2006 Page 1 of 1

1

2

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

6 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

7

)

)

8

Plaintiff,

)

)

9 vs.

)

)

10 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC, et al.,

)

)

11

Defendants,

)

)

12 and

)

)

13 ELINA MASID, et al.,

)

)

14

Plaintiff-Intervenors. )

__________________________________________)

15

Case No. 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL ORDER

16

The court conducted a hearing on May 25, 2006 on Defendant’s Emergency Motion for

17 Protective Order (#84). The court directed counsel to meet and confer in an attempt to resolve all

18 outstanding issues regarding a Rule 36(b)(6) deposition notice served by plaintiff and required the

19 parties to submit a joint status report by June 6, 2006, advising the court of any outstanding issues. The

20 parties submitted a Joint Status Report (#94) indicating that the deposition of defendant’s Rule 36(b)(6)

21 designated corporate representative(s) was rescheduled to June 22 and 23, 2006 and would be continued

22 until completed, and that the status conference could be vacated as the parties had resolved their

23 outstanding issues. Accordingly, having reviewed and considered the matter,

24

IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Protective Order (#84) is DENIED as

25 moot.

26

Dated this 14th day of June, 2006.

27

28

___________________________________

PEGGY A. LEEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 </s> Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 1 of 17

Anna Y. Park, CA SBN 164242 Connic Liem, TX SBN 791 113 Victor Viramontes, CA SRN 2 1415 8 Angela Morrison, NV SBN 9630 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 255 E.ast Temple Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-1083 Facsimile: (213) 894-1301 lad0.1eqa1~ee0~~g0v
Attorneys for Plaintiff EQUAL EMPLOYMJiN'1' OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Patrick Hicks, NV SBN 4642 Veronica Arechcdcrra Halll NV SBN 5855
Ucborah Westbrook, N V SBN 9285
LITTLER MENDELSON 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suitc 300 [.as Vegas, NV 59169 Telephonc: (702) 862-8800 Facsimile: (702) 862-88 1 I
Attorneys fur Defendants CAESARS ENTERTAlNMENT, INC., et al.

UNITED STATES DISTKlCT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 2:05-CV-0427 LKH (PAL) [PROPOSEDC] ONSENDTEC:REEO; RDER

CAESARS ENTERTATNMENT, INC., ct al., DOES 1 - 1 0 TNCILUSIVE,

Defendants.

I +-

. " "-

--

ELINA MASID, et a1.,

-?"---A"

1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , , x x

The Honorable Larry L. Hicks U.S. District Cvurt Judge

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ct al., DOES 1-I 0 INCLUSIVE,

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 2 of 17

I. 1NTHODUCTION A. Plaintiff IJ.S. Equal En~ploymentOpportimity Commission (the "EEOC" or "Commission") liled this action against Caesars Entertait~ment,Inc., Park Placc Entertainment Corp., Desert Palace, Inc., Harrah' s Entertainment, Inc., IIarrah's Operating Company. Inc., Caesar's World, Inc., and Caesars Palace Corp. utldcr Title VII U S the Civil Rights Act of 1944,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). In its Sccond Amended Complaint, the
EEOC allcgcd that Charging Parties Elina Masid, Tange Johi~son,Jessica Pauamcnu, Candelaria Turcios, and Maribel Mendoza ("Charging Parties") and other similarly situated individuals ("Class Members") were subjected to unlawfi~el mployment practices on the basis of sex, female, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VlT. The Cotnmission's Sccond Amended Complaint furtl~eralIeged that thc Charging Parties and other similarly situated individuals wcrc subjected to unlawful retaliation i11 violation of Section 704(a) of Tirle VII.
B. Defendant, Desert Palace, Inc. is a Nevada Corporalioil that does business as Caesars Palacc and operates the hotellcasino located at 3570 Las Vegas Blvd. South. Desert Palace, Inc., therefore, is the proper corporate entily against whom this Decree is binding for the hotellcasino at 3570 Las Vegas, Rlvd. South. At all timcs relevan1 to this action, Desert Palace, lnc, has been a whully-o~cnedsubsidiary of Caesars Palace Corp., a Delaware Corporation and holdjng company. At all relevant times, Caesars Palace Corporation has bcen a wholly-owned subsidiary of Caesars World, 111c.,a Florida Curpvration which is also a holding company. At all relevanl times until January 5, 2004, Caesars World, Inc. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Park Place Entertailu~lcnt Corporation. On January 5, 2004, Park Place Entertainment Curporation changed its name to Caesars Enterlaimnent, Inc. On June 13, 2005, Caesars Entcrtainmcnt, Inc. merged with and into Harrah' s Operating Company, Inc., with Harrah's Operating Company, Inc. ar:the surviving entity af1t.r the merger. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. ceased to exist m a corporate entity a1 Iht: lime of the merger. Harrah's Operating Company, Inc. is a who1ly-owned subsidiary of Harrah's Entertainment, Tnc.

-.

2

-

IPROPOSEDC] ONSENDT ~crr~tO!;RI)CR

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 3 of 17
U. Thc EEOC has agreed to distniss with prejudice Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Park Placc Entertainment Corp., Harrah's Er~tzrtai~uneI~ntc,., Harrah' s Operating Company, h ~ c . ,
Caesar's World, Inc., and Caesars Palace Corp., and shall file a stipulation to dismiss with prejudi~ee a ~ hof these parties at thc samc time thc partics file this Decree. Therefore, Desert Palace, Inc, d h l a Caesars Palace (hereinafter "Defendant" or "Caesars Palace") i s the only Defendant subject to this Decree.
D. Caesars P a h e denies unlawlirl discrimination, harassmc~itur rctaIiation of any sort and denies all allegations made by the EEOC, Charging Parties and the Clms Mei~~bers. This Dccrcc is not an adjudication or finding on the merits of this case and shall not be construed as an admission of liability on the part of Caesars Palace.
E. The EEOC, plaintiff-lntervcnors,' and Caesars Pnlace engaged it1 comprehensive
sctticmcnt negotiations and, as a result of those negotiations, the EEOC and Caesars Palace have agreed to resolve all claims between them by entry of this Decree.
11.
PURPOSES A N D SCOPE OF THE CONSENT DECREE
A. The parties to this Decree are the EEOC and Caesars Palace. The scope of this Decree includes Defendant's facility known as Caesars Palace, located at 3570 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89109. This Decree shall be binding on and enforceable against Defendant m ~ dits successors and assigns.
B. The parties have entered into this Decree for the SuIlowing purposes: 1. 'ro avoid cxpcnsive and protracted costs incident to litigation; 2. To provide a final and binding settlement upon the Parties; 3. To provide rnunehry and injunctive relief'; 4. To ensure that Defendant's employment practices comply with federal
law;
Plaintiff-intervenors is defined in Section VIII.(A .).

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 4 of 17

5. To ensure a work environment free from hostility and retaliation; 6 . To ensure training for Defendant's managers and empIoyees with respect ;o their obligations d e r Title VII; and 7. To provide an appropriate md effective mechanism for handling discrimination complaints in the workplace. 8. There is no determination implied or expressed in this Decree regarding whether the current policies, practices and procedures 01' Caesars Palace comply with Title V11.
111. RELEASE OF CLAIMS A. This Decree fidly and comple~elyresulves all issues, claims and allegalions by the EEOC againsl Caesars Palacc that are raised in the EEQC's Second Amended Complaint filed in this action in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, captioned 1J.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., et al.; Case Nu. CV-S0427 LRII (PALj. Be~auseall issues, claims and allcgatiurls madc by tlic EEOC in Case No. CV-S-0427 LKH (PAL), against Caesars Entertaitment, Tnc., Park Place Entertainment Corp., Warrah' s Entertainment, Tnc., Harrah' s Operating Company, Inc., Caesar's World, Inc., and Caesars Palace Corp. will be dismissed with prejudice, Iwne ol' these en1itit.s are subject to the
terms or this Decrcc. B. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude any party from bringing suit
to enforce this Decree in the event thrzt any party hereto fails to perform the promises and representations contained hcrci11.
C. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to limit or reduce Defendant': obligation to comply fully with Title VII or any other federal employment statute.
D. l'his Uccrcc in no way affccts thc EEOC's right to bring, process, investigate 01 liligate other charges lhiit may be in exislence or may later arise against Defendant in accordance with standard EDOC procedures.
. . .

4
[P~orosmC]ONSENDTECREEO; RDER

. . -

-...--. .-

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 5 of 17
1v.
JURISDICTION A. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this lawsuit 'I'hc Complaint asscrts claims that, if provcn, would authorize the Courl to grant the equitablt
relief set forth in this Decree. The tsnns and provisions of this Decree are fair, reasonable anc
just. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII and is not i r derogation US the rights or privileges of any person.
B. The Cour-t shall retain jurisdictiorl of this action during the duration ul' the Decret for the purposes of entering dl orders, judgments and decrees that may be necessary tc implement the relief provided herein.
v.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF DECKEE A. The provisions and agreements contained herein are effective immediately upor the datc which this Dccrcc is cntered by tht: Court ("the Effective Date"). B. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Decree shall remain in effect Ibr thret (3) years alter h e Erictive Date.
VI. MODIFICATION AND SEVEKABILITY A. This Decree constitutes the complete understanding of the partics with respect tc the matters contained hcrcin. No waiver, modification or amendment of any provjsiot~of tli: Decree will he effective unless made in writing and signcd by an aulhorized representative o. cach of the parks. B. If one or more provisions of Ihe Deuce are rendered unlawful or unenforceable the parties shall make good faith efforts to agree upon appropriait: amendments to this Decree il. order to effectuate the purposes of thc Decree. In any event, the remaining provisiotls wil remain in full forcc and eilect unless the purposes of the Decree cannot, despitc thc parties' bes cfforts, be achieved.

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 6 of 17
C. By mutual agreement oS the parties, this Decree may be amended or modifjed in the interests of j ustice and Fdirness in order to efi'ectuale Iht: provisions uf this Decree.
VII. COMPLIANCE AND DlSPUTE RESOLITTION A. The parties expressly agree that if the Commission has reason to believe that Defendant lms failed to comply u it11 any provision of this Decrce, thc Commission may bring an actinn hefore this Court to enforce the Decree. Prior to initiating such action, the Co~nmission will notify Deltndant and its legal zlcuunsel of record. in writing, of the nature of the dispute. 'I'his noticc shall spccify ttlc particular provision(s) thc Clvrnnlission believes Delendant has breached. Absent a shouiug by either party that the delay will causc irrcparablc harm, Defendant shall have thirty (30) days following receipt of such written notice to attempt to rcsolvc or cure the breach. B. The parties agree to cooperate with each other and use their best efforts to rcsolvc any dispute referenced in the EEOC notice. C. After thirty (30) days have passed with no resolution or agreement to extend the time further, the Commissioti may petition this Court for rcsolution of the dispute, seeking all available relief, including an extension of the term of the Decree for such period of time as Defendant is shown to be in breach oS (he Decree, the Commission's costs incurred in securing compliance with the Decree, and my other relief the Court. dccms appropriate.
v111. MONETARY RELIEF A. hl settlement of this lawsuit, L)cfcndanc shall pay $850,000.00 in global monetary relief. Within ten business days after the Effective Date of this Decree, Defendant shall remil $540,000.00 of the global scttlcmcnt amount to Plaintiff-Intervenors' counsel's client trud account, to bc distributed on behall' 01Jessica Alvarado Panmeno. Elina Masid, Tmge Jolmson and Candelaria Turcios ("Plaintiff-Intewenors"). As for the remaining $260,000.00 in global monetary relief, the EEOC shall, within ten business days aner the Effective Date of this Decree.

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 7 of 17
givc Defendant written notice of the specific monetary distributio~tlo bc provided to each of the EEOC Charging Parties and Class Members, along with their social security numbcrs and the address where each settlement check shall be deljvcrcd. Within tun days after receipt of such noticc, Defendan1 shall make payments as directed by the EEOC. Within three (3) business days of the issuance of each scttlernenl check to Plaintiff-in ten re nor^' counsel, and to thc Charging Parties and Class Members, Defendallt shall submil a copy of each check and related corrcspondenct: to the Regional Attorney, Anna Y. Park, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, 255 East 'l'cmple Street,4th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012
D. Defendant shall prepare and distribute I099 tax reporting forms to the Plaintifflntcrvcnors, Charging Parties and Class Members, nnd shall make appropriate reports to the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities. Defendant has not made any representations, warranties, or guarantees regarding the taxable or nun-taxable character of the monies paid in accordance with this Agreement. The Plaintiff-lntenrenors, Chflging Parties and Class Menhers shall be solely responsible lur the employee's portion of tnves payable, if any, and penalties arising out of payments made pursua~ltto this Decree, on their respective portion of settlement proceeds reported in the 1099 tax reporting forms. Dcfcndant is responsible for any enlploycr portion of tmes on thc portion ol: settlement proceeds reported in thc 1099 tax reporting forms for each Class Member. The scttlcment proceeds shall be designated by the EEOC as cor~lpcnsaturydamages under Title VTT.
IX. ADDITIONAL RELIEF TO CHARGING PARTIES AND CLASS MEMBERS
A. Defendant shall change its records to rcilect that Class Member Marysol Amescurz shall he co~sideredby Dcfcndant to be eligible for rehire at Caesars Palace. Defendant further agrees to provide Class Member MnrysuI Amescua with a neutral job reference.
B. Defendmt shall remove from the Personnel Files of all Charging Parties and identified C'lass Mcmbers all negative complaints, reports, criticisms, and any other documents reflecting negatively on their job performance, other than points or discipline for attendance

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 8 of 17
violations, since Chnrging Parties complained to Defendant's Human Resources depattmet~tin November o f 2002 up until the Effective date.
C. Defendant further agrees that should any of the Charging Parties or idcntitied Class Members resign thcir cmpluyment with Defendant, Defendant shall provide a neutral joh reference.
D. The Charging Parties and identitied Class Members shall dircct all persons
seeking rcfcrcnccs to Matt Krystoliak, Caesars Palace Human Resources Manager, at the following telephone ~ u m h e rand address: (702) 731-7420, 3570 Las Vegas I3lvd. Sourh, [.as Vegas, Nevada 89109.
X. GENEKAL 1NJ UNCTIVE RELIEF A. Non-Discrimination 1. Discrimination Based on Sex Defendant and its successors and assigns hereby agrees not to: (a) discriminate against persons on the basis of sex in the ternls and conditions of employment; (b) engage in or be a party to any untawful aclion, pdicy or practice that is intended or is known to them LO have the effect of harassing or intimidating any emplolee on the basis of sex; and (c) create. facilitate or permit the existence of a work environment that is unlawiblly hostile to fewale employees. 2. Retaliaiion Defendant and its successvrs and assigns hereby agrees not to engage in, implement or permit any action, policy or practice with thc purpose uf retaliating against any current or formcr cmployee or applicant of Defendant because he or she has in the past, or during the term of this Decree: (a) opposed any praclice made unlaufil under Title VII; (6) filcd a charge of discrimination dIeging such practice; (c) testificd or participated in any manner in any investigation (including without limitation, any internal investigation undertaken by Dcl'enht). proceeding in coru~zctionwith this case and/or relating to ally clainl of a Title VII violation; (d)

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 9 of 17

was identified as a possible witness or claimant in this action; je) asscrtcd any rights under this Decree; or (1) sought mdlor received any relief in accordance with this Decree.
Dean Allen, Vice President of Hurrlarl Resources, shall be designated as the person to whom any Class Member or Plaintiff-Intervenor (who remains employed by Ucfcndant) may addrcss any complaints relating to their employment, including sexual harassment and retaliation. This provision does not prccludc the Class Members or Plaintiff-Intervenor utilizing other reporting mechanisms that exist within Caesars and to external sourccs like the EEOC.
B. Posting Within ten (10) business days aftcr the Efl'ectivt: Date and throughout the term o f this Decree, Defendant shall post notice (attached as Exhibit "A") of the terms of this Decree, in English and in Spanish, in at least one clearly visible location frequcntcd by employees at its facility. C. Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant Within thirty days (30) after the Effective Date, Defendant shall retain an outside Equal En'lployne~tOpportunity Consultant ~'Consultanl")with demonstrated experience in the area of employment discrimination and sexual harassmetlt issues, to implement and monitor Defendant' s complim~ewith Title VII and the provisions of this Decree. The Consultant shall be subject to the Commission's approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the Conlrnission does not approve Defendant's proposed Consultant, the Commission shall provide Defendant with a list ur at least three suggested candidates acceptable to the Commissiun. Defendant agrees to consider each of the EEOC's suggested candidates in good faith. However, if after good fhith consideration of each candidate, Defendant finds the candidates unacceptable, Defendant may pruposc an alternative consultant, subject to the Conmission's appruval which shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the Defendant irnd EEOC cannot agree on n suitablc candidate, they will provide thc mmes and information regarding the qualifications of up [he three consultants that would be acceptable to each. The Court will thcn select a consultant from the candidates submitted by EEOC and the Defendant. Deliendant shall bear all costs associated with the

5,

- -.

[PROP~SED1 CONSENDTECREEO; RDER

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 10 of 17
selection and retention of the Consultant and the perfomlance of hisllccrlits duties. The Consultant shall assist Defendant in the following:
I . Developing procedures to handle complaints of discrimination, harassmen1 m d retaliation;
2. Creating, applying and implementing its new anti- I~arassrne~po~lticy and reporting proccdurc to carry out its obligations under this Decree;
3. Training managerial and staff/hourly employees on lheir rights and responsibilities under Title VII, including hut not lini ited to the responsibilities to provido a workplace lire of unlawful discrimination;
4. Training all employccs on policies and prucedures relating to sex discrimination/harassmentand retaliation;
5 . Monitoring and assuring the adequate investigation nf all complaints oi sexual discrimination/ harassmel~t and retaliation, including monitoring and assuring the adequate investigation of complaints of sexual discriminationlharassme~~bty any of the Charging Parties and class mcmbers who continue to work for Defendant during the term of this Decree;
6. Properly communicating with complainants regarding the complaint procedure, status of the con~plaintlinvestigation,results of thc investigation, and any remedial action taken;
7. Ensuring thElt all rcportv required by this Decree are accurately compiIed and timelj. submitted;
8. Ensuring appropriate and consistent disciplinary policies to huld employees and managers accountable for failing to lake appropriate action andlor for engaging in conduct prohibited under this Decree;
9. Creating a centralized system of tracking discrimination, harassment. and retaliation complaints: and
10. Further ensuring colnpliancc with the terms of this Decree.
D. Revision of Policics Concerning Discrimination and Harassment

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 11 of 17
With the assistance of the Consultant, Defendant shall revise its policy on discrimination and sexual harassment, and providc a copy to the Commission within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date. The revised policy shall include:
1. A clear explanation ol'prohibited conduct; 2. Assurance that employees who makc complaints of harassment/discrimination or provide information related to such complai~~wtsill be protected against retaliation; 3. A clearIy described complaint prvcess that provides accessible and co~~fidentialvenues of complaint with contact i l ~ f o r ~ ~ ~ aitlicolutd~ing name (if applicable), address, and telephone number of persons both internal (the.human resources) and external to Defendant (i.e., the EEOC) to whom employccs may rcport discrimination and retaliation, including a written statement that the employee may report the discriminatory behavior to designated persons outside their chain of management; 4. Assurance that the employer will protect the confidentiality of hsrassmentldiscrimination cotnplaints to the extent possible; 5 . A curnplaint process that provides a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation; 6. A procedure for commnunicating with thc complainant regarding the status of the cornplaintlinvestigation,results of the investigation, and any remedial action taken; md 7. Assurancc that Defendant will take "immediate and appropriate corrective action" within the meaning of the applicable Title V11 case law, when it determines that harassmentldiscrimination andor retaliation has occurred. This revised policy shall promptly be distributed in English and be available in Spanish to all of Defendant's employees (including managcmcntlsupervisory staff and hourIy employees). and shall be included in any ncw cclcvant policy or employee manuals distributed to employccs by Defendant. Dcfcndanl shall collect acknowledgments from each enlployec who receives the rcvised policy, in either English or Spanish, as appropriate. 'I'hroughout the term of this Decree,

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 12 of 17
Defendant shall make acczssiblc and post the revised poli~y,in English and Spanish, in a place that is conspicuous and accessible to all employees in a legible font that is a minim[urn of 15 points in size.
E. Training Within ninety (90) days after the Effectivc Uatc or sixty (60) days after sele:ction and approval of the consultant, whichever is later all of Defet~dat~tm's anagerial/ supcrv-isory and staff/hoilrly cmployees shall be required to allend an intensive live training program I3 f at least two (2) hours for mallagerial employees and one (1) hour for staff7hourly cmployees, excluding
Banquet Extras and D List Banquet Employees. One training session for staffh~ourlye:rnployees
shalt bc conducted in Spanish, and one training session for staffhourly employee!; shalt he conducted in English. Ench staffltlourly employee shall bc rcquircd to participalt. in one such training session, in the I m p u g e (either English or Spanish) that he/she best understand:3.
The second annual lraining will be conducted with a combination of a live and online component.
During the third annual year, Defendant shall have a refreslier training that can be a combination of live or online training. If the training is exclusively online, the online training shall have a component whereby the participant rnay ask questions and re~eiv:e answers regarding sexual harassment and retaliation.
1. All crnployccs' training shall include coverage of the subjects of sexual
harusment and retaliation, and nefendant's revised policies and procedures for rcpcjrting and
handling complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation. 2. The training of managerial employees shall additionally includI: training
on how to properly handle complaints of sexual tlarassrnent in a neutral manner, how to take preventive and corrective measures against sexual harassment andlor retaliation, and how to recognize and prevent sexual harassment and/or retaliation.
3. Training for e~nployeeswho arc assignrd lu investigate cornplaints of sexual llarassrnent shall include lraining on how to conduct investjgations.

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 13 of 17
4. For the remainder of ht: term of this Decree, all new employees, excluding Banquct Extras and D-List Banquel Employees. and dI employees recently promoted from a staffA~ourlyto a managerial position shall rcccivc the managerial or staffhurly employee training, as appropriate, at the next scheduled annual training session.
5 . All cmployees required lo attend such training shalI verify their annual attendance in writing.
6 . In lieu of annual training of Banquet Extras and D-List Banquct
1 1 1 Ernployccs, Ucfcndant shall disseminate its anli-dis~rirnimdonand anti-harassment policies and
procedures to such individuals. Within sixty five (65) days after the Effective Date or forty five (45) days aftcr selection
and approval of the Consultant, whichever is later, Defendant shall submit to the EEO Consultant a description of the training to he provided and an outline of thc curriculum developed for the trainees. The EEO Consultant shall inform the EEOC about the date. time, and location of each training program pursuant to this Decree and Defendant agrees that an EEOC representative may
1I attend any such training program
XI.
RECORD KEEYlNG AND REPORTING A. Record Keeping DeSendlmt shall establish a record-keeping procedure that providcs for the centralized
IItracking of discrimination complaints and the monitoring of such complaints to prevent retaliation. The records to be maintained shall include: 1 . All documents generated in connection with any complaint, investigation into, or resolution of every conlptaint of discrimination or retaliation for the duration of thc Uccrce a d the identities of the parties involved; 2. All forms acktlowledging employees' receipt of Defendant's revised mtidiscrimination and anti-retaliation policy; and

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 14 of 17
3. All ciu~urnentsverifying the occurrence of all training s e s s i o ~ ~ansd names of dl attendees for each scssiorl as rcquired under this Decree.
Defendant shall make the aforementioned records available to thc EEOC within ten (101 business days fu1lo~vinga ~rittenrequest by the EEOC.
B. Kcporting In addition to the notices to the EEOC specificd above, Defendant shall provide the following reports to the EEOC in u~itingb,y mail or facsimile:
1. Within onc hundred twenty (120j days after the Effective Date, Defendant shall submit to the EEOC an initial report which contains:
(a) A copy of the discrimination and anti-redifit ion policy; (b) A summary of the procedures md record-keeping methods developed for centl.c?lized tracking of discrimination complaints and the monitoring of such complaints; (c) A statement confirming that the required notices pertaining to this Decree and the revised discrin~inationand anti-retaliation policies have been posted; and (d) Copies of all employee acknowledgme~~fot rms indicating receipt of thc rcviscd discrimination and anti-retaliation policy. 2. Defendant shall also provide the following reports annually throughout tlic term uf this Decree: (a) The allendance lists of all attendees for all training sessions required under this Decree that took place during the previous six months; (b) Acknowledgments of receipt of the revised discrimination and hatnssment policy for all employees hired during the previous six months; and (c) Defendant shall submit to the EEOC a description of all formal sexual harassment complaints andtor relaliation complaints based on claims of scxual hvrassment that have hccn ludged against Defendant since the suhn~issionof thc immediately preceding rcport hereunder. This description shalI include t l ~ cr~amesoS the individuals alleging sexual

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 15 of 17
harassmcnt or rctaliation, thc naturc of thc sexual harassment or retaliation, the names of the alleged perpetrators of sexual harassment or rctaliation, the dates of the alleged sexual harassment or retaliation, a brief summary o f how each complaint was resolved, and thc idcntity of thc pcrson(s) who investigated or resolved ezxh complaint. If no results have been reached as of the time of the report, the result shall be includcd in the next report.
3. Defendant shall provide a report to the EEOC detailjllg ally charlgcs of the procedures or record-keeping methods for centralized tracking of discrimination complai~~atsnd the monitoring of such co~nplaintswithin thirty (30) days bdvre implementing such changes.
XII. COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF CONSENT DECREE Defendant shaH bear all costs associated with its administration and implernmlation of its obligations under t h s Decree.
XIII* COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES Each party shall bear its own costs of suit and attorneys' fees.
XlV. MISCELTJANEOUS PROVISlONS A. During the term of this Decree, Defendant shall provide m y successor wilh a copy of this Decree within a reasonable time of' not less than thirty (30) days prior to the closing of an) acquisition or assumption of control of Defendant's facilily, and shalI simultaneously infornl tlie EEOC of samc. B. During the term of this Consent Decree, Ucfcndant and its successors shall assure
that each of its officers, senior managers and department heads are aware of an) term(s) of this
Decree which may be related to hisher job duties. C. T Jnless otherwise statcd. all nulices, reports and correspot~det~crequircd under
this Decree shall bc delivered to the attention of the Regional Attorney, Anna Y . Park, U.S.

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 16 of 17
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, T ,CIS Angeles District Oficc, 255 E. Temple 4th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
D. 'I'he partics agrcc to entry oS (his Decree and judgment subject to final approva the Court.
All parlies, through the undersigned, respectfully apply for and consent to the e11W this Co~lsenDt ecree Order.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Connie Liem Victor Viramontcs Angela Morrison Attorneys for PIaintiff EEUC
LITTLER MENDELSON
BY: patrick-IIicks
Veronica Arechederra Hall Deborah Westbrook
Attorneys for Defendants Desert Palace, Inc. &/a Caesars Palac
IPROPOSED] ORDER The provisions of the foregoing Consent Decrzc art: hereby approved and complia~~ce with all provisions thcrcvf is HEREBY ORDERED.
The Honorable Lawy L. Hicks
United States District Court .iudgc

Case 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL Document 170 Filed 08/22/2007 Page 17 of 17

1 Equal Employment Oppvrtuniry Commission, Los Angelcs Distrlzt Office, 255 E. Temple St.,

2 4th FI., Lbs Angeles, CA 90012.

3

D. The panics agree to e ~ ofythis Decrec andjudgmc ni subject to final approval by

4 rhk Coun.

5

All pardes, through rht undersigned, respectfully apply fclr and conmr:to the entry of

G shia Consent Decree Order.

EQU. LLEMPI.OYMENT
OPPOR? UNITY <:OMMISSTON

Date:

,2007

By: Anna?ark Connie 1.iem
V I ;tor Vimmontts
A n@a Mctmison Anomc n for Pbintiff EEOC
L , ER MXNDELSON

Desert Palhct Inc, dh'a Caesars Palace

PROPOSWDJ ORDER

The provisions of the foregoing Consent Dccree are hereby a,jpmvtd and compliqwe

wirh all pmvisians thereof is HEREBY ORDERED.

Date: August 22, 2007. +

The Honorable 1 m i t i c s
United Stares Di ;trict Cottrt Judge

_______________________________

LARRY R. HICKS

I -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16 [PROPOSEDCO] NSWJTDECREE; ORDER

 </s> U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428 (2006)

237 F.R.D. 428 United States District Court,
D. Nevada.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC, et al., Defendants, and
Elina Masid, et al., Plaintiff–Intervenors.
No. 2:05–cv–0427–LRH–PAL. | Aug. 22, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*429 Anna Park, Connie Liem, Gregory L. McClinton, Victor Viramontes, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Legal Unit, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.
Ella S. Chatterjee, Federico C. Sayre, Law Offices of Federico Castelan Sayre, Santa Ana, CA, Matthew Q. Callister, Callister & Reynolds, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff–Intervenors.
Deborah L. Westbrook, Patrick H. Hicks, Veronica A. Arechederra–Hall, Littler Mendelson, PC, Lloyd W. Baker, Kurt D. Anderson, Baker Law Offices, Riley A. Clayton, Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Cory M. Jones, Royal, Jones, Dunkley & Wilson, Henderson, NV, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
LEEN, United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Protective Order (# 100), filed June 19, 2006.

employment practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 stemming from allegations of unlawful sexual harassment, sex-based harassment in the form of verbal harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation and/or termination by other employees of defendants. Id. Plaintiffs/Intervenors intervened in this action by filing a motion to intervene (# 3) on May 11, 2005. The court granted the motion and Plaintiffs/Intervenors filed a Complaint in Intervention (# 15) on June 16, 2005.
II. Procedural History The motion seeks a ruling on the merits of defendant’s prior Emergency Motion for Protective Order (# 84), filed May 15, 2006. A hearing was conducted on May 25, 2006, during which time the court considered defendant’s Motion (# 84) and plaintiff EEOC’s Opposition (# 90). At the conclusion of the hearing, the court gave the parties some guidance, and indicated that the issue would be taken under advisement and a written order would issue. (See Minutes, # 91.) The court ordered the parties to submit a joint status report by June 6, 2006, and that a status conference would be held on June 8, 2006. Id. The parties filed a joint status report (# 94) on June 6, 2006 stating that the court could vacate the June 8, 2006 status conference as “the parties have resolved their outstanding issues.” Accordingly, the court vacated the status conference and issued an Order (# 99) denying Defendant’s *430 Emergency Motion for Protective Order (# 84) as moot.
On June 19, 2006, the defendant filed a Renewed Motion for Protective Order (# 100) in which it explained that the parties still sought a written order on the original Emergency Motion for Protective Order (# 84) as the issues the parties indicated in their joint status report had been resolved were “collateral” to the still unresolved issues raised in the original motion. The EEOC filed a Notice of Non–Opposition on Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Protective Order Solely Requesting a Ruling on the Merits (# 101), and the defendant filed a Reply (# 109) disputing EEOC’s characterization of the procedural history.

BACKGROUND
I. The Complaint Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought this action on behalf of six female employees of defendants, and a class of similarly situated employees. (Complaint (# 1), at 4.) The complaint alleges defendants engaged in unlawful

III. Nature of the Dispute The defendant seeks a protective order precluding questioning of a corporate representative pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) concerning two of fourteen areas of examination identified by the EEOC in its Amended Notice of Deposition, attached as Exhibit B to defendant’s motion. The two areas of examination in question are:
1

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428 (2006)

10. The factual information and source of such information supporting contentions as reflected in Defendants’ position statement(s) in response to the EEOC charges of discrimination filed by Elina Masid, Candelaria Turcios, Tange Johnson, Jessica Alvarado Panameno, Maribel Mendoza.
11. The factual information and source of such information supporting Defendants’ defense and affirmative defenses as reflected in the pleadings and discovery responses.
Since the time the original motion was filed and the hearing was held, the EEOC has revised area of examination no. 11 to read:
11. The factual information and source of such information supporting Defendants’ third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh affirmative defenses as reflected in the Answer dated July 19, 2005, and Desert Palace, Inc.’s responses and answers to interrogatory no.’s 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, dated March 6, 2006.

The EEOC responds that the defendant has not met its burden for a protective order because the discovery sought by the defendant is not privileged. The EEOC asserts that it has indicated in numerous letters to the defendant that it does not seek privileged material or attorney work product; rather, it simply wants to know what facts the defendant relied upon in making its position statements and affirmative defenses. The EEOC contends that the use of Rule 30(b)(6) depositions is an efficient method of obtaining the information it seeks, especially in light of what it characterizes as defendant’s incomplete interrogatory responses regarding affirmative defenses, and defendant’s failure to supplement those responses. The EEOC argues that the cases cited by *431 the defendant in its motion have either been rejected by subsequent case law or are factually distinguishable. The EEOC notes that documents produced by the defendant related to these incidents prior to the filing of the complaint in this case were created by non-attorneys, and therefore no privilege or work product protection attaches. In addition, by formulating its areas of examination in this way, the EEOC is only seeking information that the defendant would need to present at trial, which is by definition neither privileged nor attorney work product. As a result, the EEOC argues that this information is necessary and relevant under Rule 26(b).

(Ex. F to Def.’s Renewed Mot.) In its renewed motion, the defendant indicates that despite the change in the language of area of examination no. 11, it still seeks a protective order precluding such questioning for the same reasons in the original emergency motion. (Def.’s Renewed Mot. at 5 n. 1.)
IV. The Parties’ Arguments The defendant argues that “the very nature of the EEOC’s request ... invades attorney work product and compels legal opinions and conclusions” and intrudes upon the attorney-client privilege. (Def.’s Emergency Mot. at 5:4–6.) The defendant also contends that obtaining this information by way of a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative is inefficient and burdensome, and that the information could be more expeditiously obtained by way of contention interrogatories. In addition, the defendant fears that should one of its corporate representative deponents neglect to set forth any facts upon which defendant’s affirmative defenses and responses and answers to interrogatories rest, the EEOC would use the deposition transcript to prevent the defendant from relying on one or more of its affirmative defenses at trial. Finally, the defendant points out that discovery is an ongoing process, and that it may learn information it wants to use to support its affirmative defenses subsequent to the completion of the deposition in question.

DISCUSSION
A. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) was amended in 2000 and permits discovery into “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” The stated purpose of the amendment was not only to narrow the scope of discovery, but also to address the rising costs and delay of discovery. See Graham v. Casey’s General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 253 (S.D.Ind.2002); Advisory Committee Notes to 2000 Amendments to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. A number of courts and commentators have addressed the scope of discovery since the 2000 Amendments to Rule 26(b). There seems to be a general consensus that the Amendments to Rule 26(b) “do not dramatically alter the scope of discovery.” World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t, Inc., v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 263, 265 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y.2001). Most courts which have addressed the issue find that the Amendments to Rule 26 still contemplate liberal discovery, and that relevancy under Rule 26 is extremely broad. See, e.g., Saket v. American Airlines, Inc., 2003 WL 685385, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Feb.28, 2003); Richmond v. UPS Service Parts Logistics, 2002 WL 745588, at *2 (S.D.Ind. Apr.25, 2002). See also Johnson v. Mundy Indus. Contractors, Inc., 2002 WL 31464984, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Mar.15, 2002) (stating that the 2000 Amendments to Rule 26(b)(1) are “basically a
2

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428 (2006)

semantic change unlikely to have much salutary effect on the conduct of discovery ....”).
However, a number of courts have concluded that the 2000 Amendments to Rule 26(b)(1) “mandate greater scrutiny” of discovery requests. Surles v. Air France, 2001 WL 1142231, at *1 n. 3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.27, 2001) (“it is intended that the scope of discovery be narrower than it was, in some meaningful way”). Sanyo Laser Prods. Inc. v. Arista Records, Inc., 214 F.R.D. 496, 500 (S.D.Ind.2003) (“the scope of discovery has narrowed somewhat under the revised rule. The change, while meaningful, is not dramatic, and broad discovery remains the norm.”) Several courts have concluded although there is no fundamental difference between the current and previous versions of Rule 26(b)(1), the difference can be ascertained by applying the principles in Rule 26(b)(2). As the court noted in Thompson v. Dept. of Hous. and Urban Dev.,
Lest litigants and the court become consumed with the philosophical exercise of debating the relevance between discovery relevant to the “claims and defenses” as opposed to the “subject matter” of the pending action—the jurisdictional equivalent to debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin—the practical solution to implementing the new Rule changes may be to focus more on whether the requested discovery makes sense in light of the Rule 26(b)(2) factors, than to attempt to divine some bright line difference between the old and new rule. Under this approach, when confronted with a difficult scope of discovery dispute, the parties themselves should confer, and discuss the Rule 26(b)(2) factors, in an effort to reach an acceptable compromise, or narrow the scope of their disagreement.

(internal quotations omitted). See also Rowlin v. Alabama Dep’t. of Pub. Safety, 200 F.R.D. 459, 461 (M.D.Ala.2001) (“courts have the duty to pare down overbroad discovery requests under Rule 26(b)(2) ... The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, weighing the value of the material sought against the burden of providing it, discounted by society’s interest in furthering the truthseeking function”), citing, Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033–34 (9th Cir.1990).
B. Protective Orders [1] [2] [3] [4] Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) permits the court to issue a protective order when the party seeking the order establishes “good cause” for the order and “justice requires [a protective order] to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense ...” The burden of persuasion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) is on the party seeking the protective order. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir.1986). In order to meet that burden of persuasion, the party seeking the protective order must show good cause by demonstrating a particular need for the protection sought. Id. Rule 26(c) requires more than “broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning.” Id. The party seeking the order must point to specific facts that support the request, “as opposed to conclusory or speculative statements about the need for a protective order and the harm which will be suffered without one.” Frideres v. Schlitz, 150 F.R.D. 153, 156 (S.D.Iowa 1993), citing Brittain v. Stroh Brewery Company, 136 F.R.D. 408 (M.D.N.C.1991). A mere showing that the discovery may involve some inconvenience or expense does not suffice to establish good cause under Rule 26(c). Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corporation, 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D.Nev.1997). As a general rule, courts will not grant protective orders that prohibit the taking of deposition testimony. See, Medlin v. Andrew, 113 F.R.D. 650 (M.D.N.C.1987); Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649 (5th Cir.1979); In Re McCorhill Publishing, Inc., 91 B.R. 223 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1988); 8 Wright and Miller Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2037 (1986 Supp.).

199 F.R.D. 168, 172 (D.Md.2001), accord, Sanyo Laser Products, Inc., v. Arista Records, Inc., 214 F.R.D. 496, 500 (S.D.Ind.2003). In deciding whether to restrict discovery under Rule 26(b)(2) “the court should consider the totality of the circumstances, weighing the value of the material sought against the burden of providing it, and taking into account society’s interest in furthering the truth-seeking function in the particular case before the court.” Smith v. Steinkamp, 2002 WL 1364161, at *6 (S.D.Ind. May 22, 2002), quoting, *432 Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir.2002)

C. Scope of Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions Rule 30(b)(6) provides in pertinent part that:
A party may in the party’s notice and in a subpoena name as the deponent a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency and describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which
3

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428 (2006)

examination is requested. In that event, the organization so named shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify. A subpoena shall advise a non-party organization of its duty to make such a designation. The persons so designated shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available to the organization.
There is some conflicting authority over the scope of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition due to its “reasonable particularity” requirement. Most courts have concluded that “[o]nce the witness satisfies the minimum standard [for serving as a designated witness], the scope of the deposition is determined solely by relevance under Rule 26, that is, that the evidence sought may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Detoy v. City and County of San Francisco, 196 F.R.D. 362, 367 (N.D.Ca.2000) (citing Overseas Private Investment Corp. v. Mandelbaum, 185 F.R.D. 67 (D.D.C.1999)). No “special protection is conferred on a deponent by virtue of the fact that the deposition was noticed under 30(b)(6).” King v. Pratt & Whitney, 161 F.R.D. 475, 476 (S.D.Fla.1995). As a result, the “reasonable particularity” requirement “imposes an obligation on a corporation to provide someone who can indeed answer the particular questions presaged by the notice ... [it] does not limit what can be asked at deposition.” Id.; but see Paparelli v. Prudential Insurance Co., 108 F.R.D. 727 (D.Mass.1985). Viewed in this way, the “reasonable particularity” requirement facilitates, rather than hampers, discovery. *433 Detoy, 196 F.R.D. at 367 (comparing the reasoning in King and Paparelli ).
At the same time, however, courts have recognized that “defending counsel may fear ambush, and that the designating entity could be bound by the witness’s answers or that the answers could be construed as admissions by the designating entity, or that the questions may enter into territory where the witness is unprepared.” Id. Several factors ameliorate these concerns. First, “if the deponent does not know the answer to questions outside the scope of the matters described in the notice, then that is the examining party’s problem.” King, 161 F.R.D. at 476. Second, counsel “may note on the record that answers to questions beyond the scope of the Rule 30(b)(6) designation are not intended as the answers of the designating party and do not bind the designating party.” Detoy, 196 F.R.D. at 367. “Prior to trial, counsel may request from the trial judge jury instructions that

such answers were merely the answers or opinions of individual fact witnesses, not admissions of the party.” Id.
The present dispute concerns the defendant’s request for a protective order to limit the scope of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition questioning to preclude inquiry into the factual bases for defendant’s asserted position statements and affirmative defenses. Preliminarily, the court notes that Rule 26(a)(5) provides parties with their choice of the discovery methods authorized under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the use of Rule 30(b)(6) depositions for the purpose of obtaining the factual bases for a defendant’s asserted position statements or affirmative defenses is not novel. Numerous courts in a variety of cases have considered this situation and either allowed or disallowed the practice. See e.g. AMP, Inc. v. Fujitsu Microelectronics, Inc., 853 F.Supp. 808, 831 (M.D.Pa.1994) (compelling a corporate defendant to produce a 30(b)(6) witness to answer questions regarding the contentions and affirmative defenses detailed in defendants’ answer and counterclaim); In re Independent Serv. Organ. Antitrust Litigation, 168 F.R.D. 651 (D.Kan.1996) (prohibiting deposition questions concerning defendant’s affirmative defenses due to “serious privilege concerns”); McCormick–Morgan, Inc. v. Teledyne Industries, Inc., 134 F.R.D. 275 overruled on other grounds 765 F.Supp. 611 (N.D.Ca.1991) (concluding that “appropriately framed and timed contention interrogatories” rather than depositions of alleged infringing corporation’s designated employees, was appropriate method for establishing alleged infringer’s contentions). The pattern that emerges from a review of these cases is that courts faced with this scenario must decide two primary issues: (1) whether the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine prevents the witness from answering questions regarding facts supporting the parties’ contentions or affirmative defenses, and (2) if not, whether a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is an overly burdensome method of acquiring this information, or whether less burdensome methods exist. See e.g. Protective Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 137 F.R.D. 267, 282–83 (D.Neb.1989) (citing Lance, Inc. v. Ginsburg, 32 F.R.D. 51 (E.D.Pa.1962)).
i. Attorney–Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine [5] The attorney-client privilege does not prevent the disclosure facts communicated to an attorney, and the work product doctrine does not prevent the disclosure of facts communicated by an attorney to a client that the attorney obtained from independent sources. Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383, 395–96, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). In accordance with these rules articulated by the Supreme Court, lower courts seem
4

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428 (2006)

to agree that the attorney-client privilege does not preclude a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of a party’s claims or defenses; however, lower courts are split over whether the work product doctrine prevents Rule 30(b)(6) deposition questions concerning the facts underlying a party’s contentions and affirmative defenses. Compare Protective, 137 F.R.D. at 279 (finding neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine applicable) with Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of R. I., 896 F.Supp. 8, 14 (D.D.C.1995) (concluding that facts supporting affirmative defenses *434 were protected by the work product doctrine). For example, in Am. Nat’l Red Cross, the court concluded that discovery by this means was protected by the work product doctrine, reasoning that a party’s decision-making in the selection of documents and information to present to defend its claim was litigation strategy. 896 F.Supp. at 14. On that basis, the court concluded that an opposing party could not ask questions of a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent about the documents themselves because the documents were inescapably bound up in the process of their selection, which was protected attorney work product. Id. By contrast the court in Protective concluded:

There is simply nothing wrong with asking for facts from a deponent even though those facts may have been communicated to the deponent by the deponent’s counsel. But, depending upon how questions are phrased to the witness, deposition questions may tend to elicit the impressions of counsel about the relative significance of the facts; opposing counsel is not entitled to his adversaries’ thought processes.
137 F.R.D. at 280. In balancing these concerns, the court reasoned that any deposition of a witness who was represented by counsel posed the risk that some protected material would be disclosed, but that the risk was outweighed by the need for discovery. Id. at 281.

Comparing these two cases, a third court found the reasoning in Protective more persuasive. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Trustmark Ins. Co., 218 F.R.D. 29, 34 (D.Conn.2003). This court agrees. The court in Security noted that

while objecting to the deposition

questions as protected or privileged

information, [the party opposing

deposition questions] does not

argue

that

contention

interrogatories would be similarly

inappropriate. As courts have held

contention interrogatories seeking

the factual bases for allegations would not encroach on protected information ... it is not apparent how the same information would be otherwise unavailable through questions posed to a deponent in the course of a deposition.
Id. (citing U.S. v. Boyce, 148 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1086 (S.D.Cal.2001)). The court went on to reason that the affirmative duty imposed by Rule 30(b)(6) upon a party to produce a witness with knowledge of the underlying facts of a case was not altered in any way if that witness learned of the information by consulting documents protected as attorney work product. Id.
[6] Like the party opposing deposition questions in Security, the defendant in the instant case has conceded that contention interrogatories would be an acceptable means for obtaining this information. (Emergency Mot. at 7:12–18.) This court cannot discern how the same factual information can be protected by the attorney-client privilege and as attorney work product when elicited in oral deposition questions, but fully discoverable within the context of a written interrogatory. The court finds the reasoning of the Protective, Security and Boyce decisions more persuasive than the courts which have held that the work product doctrine precludes Rule 30(b)(6) deposition questions concerning facts underlying a party’s contentions and affirmative defenses. Oral deposition questions of non-lawyer witnesses may pose a slightly greater risk of inadvertent disclosure of privileged or protected information, but that risk is adequately addressed by the presence of counsel who may instruct the witness not to answer improperly phrased questions which would reveal attorney-client privileged information. Since Rule 30(b)(6) imposes an affirmative duty on a party to designate a witness with knowledge of the areas of examination identified by the opposing party, that witness can be counseled on the scope of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine in deposition preparation. Accordingly, the court finds that areas of examination nos. 10 and 11 do not inherently call for information protected by either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Both areas of inquiry seek the discovery of facts and the source of information about the defendants’ claims and defenses which are clearly relevant and discoverable within the meaning of Rule 26(b). Therefore as with written interrogatories under Rule 33, defense counsel may not object to this line of questioning on the *435 basis that it calls for the application of fact to law. The EEOC has repeatedly assured the court and opposing counsel that it will not seek to ask questions of the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent(s) which probe the mental impressions or thought processes of counsel or to inquire into clearly privileged communications between the corporate defendant and its counsel, and the court fully expects the
5

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428 (2006) EEOC will honor its commitment in this regard.

ii. Burdensomeness [7] Having decided that neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine prevent the proposed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, the court must address defendant’s burdensomeness argument. Courts that have examined this practice, though split in their analyses, have focused on whether the questioning calls for non-lawyers to perform legal analysis such that this information could be better obtained through contention interrogatories. In McCormick–Morgan, the court prohibited the depositions, reasoning that the complex nature of patent cases required answers to questions about “the bases for contentions” that called for “quasi-legal argument”; whereas in Protective, the court allowed the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of an insurance carrier’s accountant given that most of the answer and counterclaim referred to facts within the knowledge of someone in her position. 134 F.R.D. at 286, 137 F.R.D. at 282. Citing Protective, the court in Security came to a more expansive conclusion, holding that it “is of no consequence that contention interrogatories may be the more appropriate route to obtain the information as nothing precludes a deposition either in lieu of or in conjunction with such interrogatories.” 218 F.R.D. at 34.
In the instant case, the court finds that the defendant has not met its burden of establishing the areas of examination are so burdensome to justify a denial of the EEOC’s choice of discovery methods under Rule 26(a)(5). The court denies the defendant’s request to require the use of contention interrogatories in lieu of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the areas of examination in dispute here. Defendant’s written position statements during the administrative process and affirmative defenses are not complex patent issues that call for “quasi-legal argument.” The position statements were authored by non-lawyers, and provide the defendant’s factual bases for denying any unlawful conduct. The affirmative defenses are obviously legal in nature, but the facts which support them are not. Moreover, due to the affirmative duty imposed by Rule 30(b)(6) for the corporation to designate a witness to testify on matters known or reasonably available to the corporation, the defendant and its counsel control who will testify on its behalf and have the ability, indeed, the duty to properly educate the witness or witnesses who testify on its behalf. In addition, the EEOC revised area of examination no. 11 to exclude some of the defendant’s affirmative defenses that only call for legal analysis, and therefore have limited the scope of the areas of examination to affirmative defenses that require factual support.

D. Sanctions [8] The EEOC’s opposition requested sanctions under Rule 37 for what it argues is the defendant’s intentional delay of discovery in this case. Rule 37(a)(4) was amended in 1970. According to the Advisory Committee, the 1970 Amendments to the Rule were intended to assure that expenses would “ordinarily be awarded unless the court finds that the losing party acted justifiably in carrying his point to the court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, 1970 Advisory Committee Notes. Reasonable costs and attorney’s fees should be imposed unless the court finds (1) the motion was filed without a good faith effort to obtain the discovery without court intervention, (2) the objection was substantially justified, or (3) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(A). A request for discovery is “substantially justified” under Rule 37 if reasonable people could differ on the matter in dispute. Reygo Pacific Corporation v. Johnston Pump Company, 680 F.2d 647, 649, citing, C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2288. The court finds the parties’ respective positions were substantially justified and that no sanctions are, therefore, required.
*436 CONCLUSION
The two areas of examination in dispute in this motion are relevant and discoverable within the meaning of Rule 26(b). Defendant has not met its burden of establishing that a protective order should issue precluding the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition from going forward. The court will hold the EEOC to its representations that counsel will not ask questions which seek the discovery of truly privileged communications between the defendant and its counsel or which probe the mental impressions and thought processes of counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Protective Order (# 100) is DENIED.
Parallel Citations
66 Fed.R.Serv.3d 71
	
  

6

 </s> U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2006 WL 1168840 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Nevada.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Park Place Entertainment Corporation, a Delaware Corporation and Does
1-10, inclusive, Defendants. Elina MASID, Jessica Alvarado Panameno, Tange
Johnson and Candelaria Turcios, Plaintiffs/Intervenors, v.
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, Park Place
Entertainment Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Desert Palace Inc., a Nevada Corporation, dba Caesars Palace; Juan Gonzalez; Daniel Pinelo; Ricardo Hernandez; and Does 1-10
inclusive, Defendants.
No. 02:05CV00427LRH(PAL). | April 25, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Anna Park, Connie Liem, Gregory L. McClinton, Victor Viramontes, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Legal Unit, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.
Ella S. Chatterjee, Law Office of Frederico C. Sayre, Federico Castelan Sayre, pro hac vice, Santa Ana, CA, Matthew Q. Callister, Callister & Reynolds, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs/Intervenors.
Patrick H. Hicks, Veronica A. Arechederra-Hall, Littler Mendelson, PC, Lloyd W. Baker, Kurt D. Anderson, Baker Law Offices, Riley A. Clayton, Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
HICKS, J.
*1 Presently before the court is defendant Daniel Pinelo’s (“Pinelo”) Motion for Summary Judgment with Respect to all Plaintiffs’/Intervenors’ Claims for Relief (# 251). Plaintiffs/Intervenors Elina Masid, Jessica Alvarado Panameno, Tange Johnson and Candelaria Turcios

(collectively, “Plaintiffs/Intervenors”) filed an opposition (# 26) and Pinelo replied (# 27). Defendants Desert Palace, Inc. d/b/a Caesars Palace, Caesars Entertainment, Inc., and Park Place Entertainment Corporation (collectively, “Caesars”) have filed a joinder (# 31) in Pinelo’s motion. Plaintiffs/Intervenors have filed an opposition (# 34) and Caesars replied (# 42). Plaintiffs/Intervenors have also filed two statements of undisputed facts (# s 37, 39).

1

Refers to the court’s docket number.

I. Factual Background This is a sexual harassment and retaliation action brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiffs/Intervenors intervened in this action by filing a motion to intervene (# 3) on May 11, 2005. The court granted the motion and Plaintiffs/Intervenors filed a Complaint in Intervention (# 15) on June 16, 2005.
The four Plaintiffs/Intervenors have been employed by Caesars during the time periods relevant to this litigation. (Compl. in Intervention ¶¶ 4-7.) Defendant Pinelo became employed by Caesars on August 19, 2000. (Pinelo’s Mot. for Summ. J., Aff. of Pinelo, Ex. B. ¶ 2.) Pinelo was initially hired as a “utility/kitchen worker,” but was later promoted to “Assistant Manager-Stewarding.” Id.
Plaintiffs/Intervenors allege that Pinelo “engaged in a persistent pattern of severe and pervasive harassment” that included, among other things, making sexually explicit comments, touching Plaintiffs/Intervenors, exposing his genitals, ejaculating in front of or onto Plaintiffs/Intervenors, and pushing Plaintiffs/Intervenors against a wall. (Compl.¶¶ 35, 40, 44, 131, 151, 153, 161.)
Plaintiffs/Intervenors filed charges of discrimination and sexual harassment with the EEOC and the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (“NERC”) on November 18, 2002. (Opp’n to Pinelo’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 2.) On November 22, 2002, Caesars placed Pinelo on administrative leave. (Pinelo’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 8.) Pinelo never returned to work, and his employment was terminated on December 26, 2002. Id. Following an investigation, the EEOC filed a class action lawsuit aginst Caesars on March 31, 2005. (Opp’n to Pinelo’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 2.) In their complaint in intervention, Plaintiffs/Intervenors have asserted both state and federal claims of sexual harassment and retaliation along with state tort claims for battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and negligence.
1

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

II. Legal Standard Summary judgment is appropriate only when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In assessing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence, together with all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom, must be read in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); County of Tuolumne v. Sonora Cmty. Hosp., 236 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2001).
*2 The moving party bears the burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion, along with evidence showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). On those issues for which it bears the burden of proof, the moving party must make a showing that is “sufficient for the court to hold that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party.” Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir.1986). See also Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1141 (C.D.Cal.2001). For those issues where the moving party will not have the burden of proof at trial, the movant must point out to the court “that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Catrett, 477 U .S. at 325.
In order to successfully rebut a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must point to facts supported by the record which demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Reese v. Jefferson School Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736 (9th Cir.2000). A “material fact” is a fact “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, summary judgment is not appropriate. See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir.1983). A dispute regarding a material fact is considered genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient to establish a genuine dispute; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff. See id. at 252.
III. Discussion In seeking summary judgment, Pinelo first argues that the

state and federal statutory claims must be dismissed because Pinelo is not an employer. (Mot. for Summ. J. at 8-9.) As to the state tort claims, Pinelo argues that they must be dismissed because the statute of limitations has expired. Id. at 9. The court will discuss each argument in turn.
A. State and Federal Statutory Claims Plaintiffs’/Intervenors’ first five claims for relief allege violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq., and sections 613.330 and 613.340(a) of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 613.330, 613.340(a). See (Compl. in Intervention.) The question this court must answer is whether an individual can be held liable under either the state or federal statutory schemes.
Section 2000e-2(a)(1) makes it an unlawful employment practice “to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. Sexual harassment is a species of gender discrimination and thus constitutes a violation of Section 2000e-2. Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 923 (9th Cir.2000).
*3 In Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether an individual has personal liability under Title VII. 91 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir.1993). After noting a disagreement among some courts, the Ninth Circuit stated that the statutory scheme of Title VII “indicates that Congress did not intend to impose individual liability on employees.” Id. For this reason, it is clear that Plaintiffs/Intervenors cannot bring a Title VII action against Pinelo.
In addition to Title VII, Plaintiffs/Intervenors have brought related state law causes of action for discrimination and retaliation. Nevada Revised Statutes section 613.330(1)(a) is almost identical to Title VII and prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability or national origin.” See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 613.330(1)(a). The parties have not cited any authority indicating whether an individual can be held liable under Nevada’s statutory scheme and the court’s independent research did not reveal any such authority. Therefore, this issue appears to be one of first impression, and the task of this court is to predict how the Nevada Supreme Court would decide the issue. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Grunwald, 400 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cir.2005) (citing Walker v. City of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1125 (9th Cir.2001)).
Due to the similarity between Title VII and Nevada’s anti-discrimination statutes, the Nevada Supreme Court
2

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

often looks to the federal courts for guidance in discrimination cases. Pope v. Motel 6, 114 P.3d 277, 280 (Nev.2005). In this instance, the court sees no meaningful distinction between Title VII and Nevada’s statutory scheme in relation to the reasoning used by the Ninth Circuit in Miller. Therefore, it appears to this court that the Nevada Supreme Court would find that there is no liability for an individual pursuant to sections 613.330(1) and 613.340(a) of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted on Plaintiffs’/ Intervenors’ first five claims for relief against Pinelo.
B. State Tort Claims In addition to the statutory claims addressed above, Plaintiffs/Intervenors have brought a number of tort claims including battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and negligence. (Compl.) Pinelo and Caesars argue that these state law tort claims are barred by Nevada’s two-year statute of limitations. (Pinelo’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 12-14.) In opposition, Plaintiffs/Intervenors seek to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling in order to allow their claims to move forward. (Opp’n to Pinelo’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 5-9.)
In the absence of equitable tolling, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs’/ Intervenors’ state law tort claims are barred by the statute of limitations. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.190(4). “Nevertheless, in situations ‘where the danger of prejudice to the defendant is absent, and the interests of justice so require, equitable tolling of the limitations period may be appropriate.” ’ Sieno v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nevada, 111 P.3d 1107, 1112 (Nev.2005) (quoting Azer v. Connell, 306 F.3d 930, 936 (9th Cir.2002)). In Nevada, the doctrine of equitable tolling was originally adopted in the context of Nevada’s anti-discrimination statutes but has since been extended to operate in other areas of the law. Id.; Copeland v. Desert Inn Hotel, 99 Nev. 823, 673 P.2d 490, 492 (Nev.1983).
*4 Nevada courts use six nonexclusive factors in determining whether equitable tolling should be applied: (1) the diligence of the claimant; (2) the claimant’s knowledge of the relevant facts; (3) the claimant’s reliance on authoritative statements by the administrative agency that misled the claimant about the nature of the claimant’s rights; (4) any deception or false assurances on the part of the employer against whom the claim is made; (5) the prejudice to the employer that would actually result from delay during the time that the limitations period is tolled; (6) and any other equitable considerations appropriate in the particular case. Copeland, 673 P.2d at 492.
In examining these factors, the court concludes that

equitable tolling is not warranted in this case. First, Plaintiffs/Intervenors have not presented any evidence or argument showing that they diligently pursued their state law tort claims. Although Plaintiffs/Intervenors pursued their statutory claims by filing charges with the EEOC and the NERC, they have not presented any justification as to why they did not pursue their state law claims. There is no provision in Title VII that would have prevented Plaintiffs/Intervenors from pursuing their state law claims during the pendency of the EEOC investigation. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et seq.
As to the second factor, it is clear that Plaintiffs/Intervenors were aware of the relevant facts in this case. Plaintiffs/Intervenors Elina Masid, Jessica Alvarado Panameno, and Candelaria Turcios became aware of their potential actions as early as November of 2002. (Plaintiffs’/Intervenors’ Resp. to Def.’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts at 6.) Similarly, Plaintiff/Intervenor Tange Johnson had complained about Defendant Ricardo Hernandez’s actions on February 14, 2001, and retained counsel on April 17, 2001. Id. at 4, 6, 673 P.2d 490. With respect to the third and fourth Copeland factors, there is no evidence that Plaintiffs/Intervenors relied on any authoritative statements by the administrative agency or that they were deceived by Caesars.
The fifth factor of the Copeland test requires the court to determine whether prejudice would result from delay during the time period the limitations period is tolled. Copeland, 673 P.2d at 492. Defendants argue that they will be prejudiced in defending the claims because “Plaintiffs cannot even recall the exact day, week, or month when the alleged misconduct took place.” (Pinelo’s Reply to Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. at 9.) Plaintiffs/Intervenors, on the other hand, argue that “the EEOC and NERC have preserved [their] sworn statements at or around the time the tortious conduct occurred and have preserved witness statements.” (Mem. of P. & A. In Support of Opp’n to Def.’s Joinder at 7-8.)
Under the circumstances of this case, the court finds that any prejudice to Defendants would be minimal in light of the EEOC and NERC investigations. Plaintiffs’/Intervenors’ state tort causes of action all arise out of the same conduct and events that form the basis for their statutory causes of action. Therefore, it appears that evidence relating to these claims was preserved through the investigations conducted by the EEOC and NERC. Nevertheless, some prejudice may exist due to the likely difficulty of conducting independent investigations years after the alleged conduct occurred.
*5 Finally, this court, in considering whether to equitably toll the statute of limitations, can consider any other equitable considerations appropriate in the particular case.” Copeland, 673 P.2d at 492. In this case, the court
3

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

agrees with Plaintiffs/Intervenors that combining the state law causes of action with the statutory causes of action promotes judicial economy. As mentioned previously, the evidence necessary to prove each set of claims is likely similar. Thus, all Plaintiffs’/Intervenors’ causes of action could be conveniently tried together.
Nonetheless, taken together, the Copeland factors do not warrant equitable tolling. See Copeland, 673 P.2d at 492; See also Arnold v. United States, 816 F.2d 1306, 1312-13 (9th Cir.1987) (declining to equitably toll the limitations period for tort claims, filed pursuant to California law, while the Plaintiff pursued her Title VII remedies). Plaintiffs/Intervenors have not provided any explanation as to why they did not pursue their state causes of action during the pendency of the EEOC and NERC investigations. To the extent Plaintiffs/Intervernors were concerned with judicial economy, they could have filed a complaint with respect to the state causes of action and then sought a stay and eventual consolidation with the

statutory claims. The fact that minimal prejudice would befall Defendants is insufficient, by itself, to warrant equitably tolling the statute of limitations. Although the court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs/Intervenors and the egregious allegations contained in the Complaint in Intervention, the court will not equitably toll the limitations period when Plaintiffs/Intervenors took no steps to preserve their claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Pinelo’s Motion for Summary Judgment with Respect to all Plaintiffs’/Intervenors’ Claims for Relief (# 25) is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of April, 2006.
	
  

4

 </s> U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2007 WL 1231776 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Nevada.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, Park Place
Entertainment Corporation, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants. Elina Masid, Jessica Alvarado Panameno, Tange
Johnson and Candelaria Turcios, Plaintiffs/Intervenors, v.
Caesars Entertainment, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Park Place Entertainment
Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; Desert Palace Inc., a Nevada Corporation, dba Caesars Palace; Juan Gonzalez; Daniel Pinelo; Ricardo Hernandez; and does 1-10 inclusive, Defendants.
No. 02:05-CV-00427-LRH-PAL. | April 25, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Anna Park, Connie Liem, Gregory L. McClinton, Victor Viramontes, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Legal Unit, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.
Ella S. Chatterjee, Federico C Sayre, Matthew J. Salcedo, Law Offices of Federico Castelan Sayre, Santa Ana, CA, Matthew Q. Callister Callister & Reynolds Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs/Intervenors.
Deborah L. Westbrook, Patrick H. Hicks, Veronica A. Arechederra-Hall, Littler Mendelson, PC, Lloyd W. Baker, Kurt D. Anderson, Baker Law Offices, Riley A. Clayton, Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Cory M Jones, Royal, Jones, Dunkley & Wilson, Henderson, NV, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
LARRY R. HICKS, United States District Judge.
*1 Presently before the court is defendant Ricardo Hernandez’s (“Hernandez”) Motion for Summary Judgment (# 1301). Plaintiff/intervenor Tange Johnson

(“Johnson”) filed an opposition (# 132) and Plaintiffs/Intervenors Elina Masid, Jessica Alvarado Panameno, and Candelaria Turcios have filed a statement of non-opposition (# 142). Hernandez subsequently filed a reply (# 143). Also before the court is the parties request for clarification of the court’s April 25, 2006, Order (# 61). The court held a status conference on March 19, 2007, to hear from the parties and will clarify its previous order below.

1

Refers to the court’s docket number.

I. Factual and Procedural Background This is a sexual harassment and retaliation action brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The present motion requires the court to address issues that are identical to issues that have previously been ruled upon by this court. See (April 25, 2006, Order (# 61)); (September 27, 2006, Order (# 138).)
The factual background relevant to the present motion is undisputed. During the time period relevant to this action, Johnson was employed by Caesars. From approximately September, 2000, to February 6, 2001, Hernandez was Johnson’s supervisor and allegedly subjected Johnson to sexual harassment. Hernandez was placed on administrative leave in February, 2001, and was terminated from his employment on March 23, 2001. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated the allegations in this case and filed suit on March 31, 2005. Johnson intervened in this action asserting both federal and state claims of sexual harassment and retaliation along with several state tort claims.
II. Motion for Summary Judgment
A. Legal Standard Summary judgment is appropriate only when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In assessing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence, together with all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom, must be read in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); County of Tuolumne v. Sonora Cmty. Hosp., 236 F .3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2001).
1

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

The moving party bears the burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion, along with evidence showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U .S. 317, 323 (1986). On those issues for which it bears the burden of proof, the moving party must make a showing that is “sufficient for the court to hold that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party.” Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir.1986); see also Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1141 (C.D.Cal.2001). For those issues where the moving party will not have the burden of proof at trial, the movant must point out to the court “that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Catrett, 477 U.S. at 325.
*2 In order to successfully rebut a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must point to facts supported by the record which demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Reese v. Jefferson School Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736 (9th Cir.2000). A “material fact” is a fact “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, summary judgment is not appropriate. See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir.1983). A dispute regarding a material fact is considered genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient to establish a genuine dispute; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff. See id . at 252.
B. Discussion In this motion, Hernandez argues that Johnson’s state and federal employment claims should be dismissed because Hernandez is not subject to liability under the applicable statutes. In addition, Hernandez argues that Johnson’s state law claims should be dismissed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Johnson opposes the motion by raising arguments that have previously been rejected by the court. Specifically, Johnson argues, citing out-of-circuit authority, that Hernandez is subject to liability for sexual harassment. With respect to her state law tort claims, Johnson argues that such claims are subject to equitable tolling. As this court has already addressed these issues in two previous orders, (April 25, 2006, Order (# 61)); (September 27, 2006, Order (# 138)), only a limited discussion is necessary to resolve the present motion.
1. State and Federal Statutory Claims

As the parties are aware, the court has previously determined that individual employees and supervisors are not subject to liability under either title VII or sections 613.330 and 613.340(a) of the Nevada Revised Statutes. (April 25, 2006, Order (# 61)); (September 27, 2006, Order (# 138).) In seeking a different result here, Johnson relies on Tafoya v. Adams, 612 F.Supp. 1097, 1104-05 (D.Colo.1985), for the proposition that a supervisory or management level employee can be held liable under Title VII. Johnson’s reliance on Tafoya is misplaced in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir.1993). Pursuant to Miller, Hernandez cannot be held liable for an alleged violation of Title VII. For the same reason, Hernandez cannot be held liable for the alleged violation of sections 613.330 and 613.340(a).2 (April 25, 2006, Order (# 61)); (September 27, 2006, Order (# 138).)

2

To the extent Johnson has requested leave to amend the

Complaint in Intervention, Johnson may file a motion

in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and Local Rule 15-1.

2. State Tort Claims It is undisputed that Johnson’s state tort claims are barred by Nevada’s statute of limitations. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.190(4). Johnson, however, argues that this court should equitably toll the limitations period. Specifically, Johnson argues that equitable tolling is appropriate because her claims against Hernandez are not stale, she diligently pursued her claims, and the filing of a Complaint in Intervention promotes judicial economy.
*3 The arguments raised by Johnson are identical to arguments previously raised and disposed of by this court. See (April 25, 2006, Order (# 61)); (September 27, 2006, Order (# 138).) The court finds the reasoning in its April 25, 2006, and September 27, 2006, Orders equally applicable to the present motion. For the reasons previously addressed by the court, the court finds that equitable tolling is not warranted in this case. See id. As such, summary judgment will be granted.
III. Request for Clarification On April 25, 2006, the court issued an Order (# 61) granting summary judgment with respect to all Plaintiffs’/Intervenors’ claims for relief against Daniel Pinelo (“Pinelo”). Defendants Desert Palace, Inc. d/b/a Caesars Palace, Caesars Entertainment, Inc., and Park Place Entertainment Corporation (collectively, “Caesars”) filed a joinder (# 31) to Pinelo’s motion for summary judgment. The court’s April 25, 2006, Order has caused confusion among the parties as it did not specifically
2

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

address the negligent supervision and hiring claim brought solely against Caesars.
The court’s April 25, 2006, Order did not dispose of the negligent supervision and hiring claim that was brought against Caesars as that claim was not considered by the court. Nevertheless, the court has reviewed and considered all the documents filed with respect to Pinelo’s motion for summary judgment and Caesars’ joinder and finds that summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiffs’/Intervenors’ Eleventh Claim for relief.
The court’s reasoning in its April 25, 2006, order is equally applicable to Plaintiffs’/Intervenors’ negligent hiring and supervision claim. As with the other tort claims in this case, the parties agree that the statute of limitations has run. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.190(4). Furthermore, the court finds that equitable tolling is inappropriate for

reasons that have previously been stated by the court. See (April 25, 2006, Order (# 61)); (September 27, 2006, Order (# 138).) Therefore, summary judgment on Plaintiffs’/Intervenors’ Eleventh Claim for Relief will be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Hernandez’s Motion for Summary Judgment (# 130) is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ request for clarification is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’/Intervenors’ Eleventh Claim for Relief is hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
	
  

3

 </s> CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

CLOSED, ENE
United States District Court District of Nevada (Las Vegas) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al. Assigned to: Judge Larry R. Hicks Referred to: Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen
Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt (Settlement) Cause: 42:2000

Date Filed: 03/31/2005 Date Terminated: 08/22/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Angela D Morrison United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 333 S. Las Vegas Blvd. Suite 8112 Las Vegas, NV 89101 702-388-5099 Fax: 702-388-5094 Email: angela.morrison@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY

Anna Park U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012213-894-1083 Email: anna.park@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Connie Liem U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Legal Unit 401 B St., Suite 510 San Diego, CA 92101 619 557-7282 Fax: 619 557-7274 Email: connie.liem@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY

1 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2
V. Intervenor Plaintiff Jessica Alvarado - Panameo
2 of 25

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory L. McClinton United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Legal unit 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012(213) 894-1000 Fax: 213-894-1118 Email: Gregory.McClinton@EEOC.Gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor Viramontes U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Legal Unit 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012Email: victor.viramontes@eeoc.gov
represented by Dennis Frank Minna Law Offices of Federico C. Sayre 900 North Broadway, 4th Floor Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-550-9117 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ella S. Chatterjee Law Office of Frederico C. Sayre 900 N. Broadway 4th Floor Santa Ana, CA 92701 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Federico C Sayre Law Offices of Federico Castelan Sayre 900 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-550-9117
3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2
Intervenor Plaintiff Tange Johnson
3 of 25

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...
Fax: 714-550-9125 Email: wpeuse@sayre-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Q. Callister Callister & Reynolds 823 Las Vegas Blvd., South Las Vegas, NV 89101 (702) 385-3343 Fax: (702) 385-2899 Email: mqc@callister-reynolds.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda M. Medina pro hac vice 900 North Broadway, 4th Fl Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-550-9117 Fax: 714-550-9125 TERMINATED: 01/19/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Dennis Frank Minna (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ella S. Chatterjee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Federico C Sayre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Q. Callister (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J Salcedo Law Offices of Federic Castelan Sayre 900 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92701
3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2
Intervenor Plaintiff Elina Masid
Intervenor Plaintiff Candelaria Turcios
4 of 25

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...
(714) 550-9117 Fax: (714) 550-9125 Email: msalcedo@sayre-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda M. Medina (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/19/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Dennis Frank Minna (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ella S. Chatterjee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Federico C Sayre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Q. Callister (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J Salcedo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda M. Medina (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/19/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Dennis Frank Minna (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ella S. Chatterjee
3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2
V. Defendant Caesars Entertainment, Inc.
5 of 25

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Federico C Sayre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Q. Callister (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J Salcedo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yolanda M. Medina (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/19/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Deborah L. Westbrook Littler Mendelson 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937 (702) 862-8800 Fax: (702) 862-8811 Email: dwestbrook@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick H. Hicks Littler Mendelson, PC 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89109 Email: phicks@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Veronica A. Arechederra-Hall Littler Mendelson, PC
3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2
Defendant Desert Palace, Inc Defendant Juan Gonzalez
Defendant
6 of 25

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937 Email: varechederra@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah L. Westbrook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Veronica A. Arechederra-Hall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lloyd W. Baker Baker Law Offices 500 South Eighth Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 702-360-4949 Fax: 702-360-3234 Email: lloyd@bakerattorneys.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cory M Jones Royal, Jones, Dunkley & Wilson 2920 N. Green Valley Parkway Henderson, NV 89014 702-471-6777 Fax: 702-531-6777 Email: cjones@rjdwlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kurt D. Anderson Baker Law Offices 333 North Rancho Las Vegas, NV 89106 702-360-4949 Fax: 702-360-3234 Email: Lloyd@BakerinjuryAttorneys.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2
Ricardo Hernandez
Defendant Park Place Entertainment Corporation
Defendant Daniel Pinelo Defendant Caesars Palace Corporation
Defendant

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...
represented by Kurt D. Anderson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riley A. Clayton Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP 7455 W. Washington Ave Suite 460 Las Vegas, NV 89128 702-316-4111 Fax: 702-316-4114 Email: rclayton@lawhjc.com LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Deborah L. Westbrook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick H. Hicks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Veronica A. Arechederra-Hall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Riley A. Clayton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah L. Westbrook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Veronica A. Arechederra-Hall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

7 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

Caesars World, Inc.
Defendant Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
Defendant Harrah's Operating Company, Inc.
Claimant Thomas Moore

represented by Deborah L. Westbrook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Veronica A. Arechederra-Hall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah L. Westbrook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Veronica A. Arechederra-Hall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah L. Westbrook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Veronica A. Arechederra-Hall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas J. Moore T J Moore, Ltd. 830 East Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89104-1572 702-870-2788 Fax: 702-870-1029 Email: mooretj@msn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/31/2005 03/31/2005 05/11/2005

# Docket Text 1 COMPLAINT by Plf w/jury demand. (Entered: 04/05/2005) SUMMONS ISSUED (2) as to Dfts. (Entered: 04/05/2005) 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Intervening Pltfs. (s) (Entered: 05/12/2005)

8 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

05/11/2005 05/12/2005 05/20/2005 05/24/2005
05/24/2005
05/24/2005
05/24/2005
06/08/2005 06/08/2005 06/15/2005 06/16/2005 07/11/2005 07/19/2005 07/19/2005 07/20/2005 07/27/2005 08/15/2005 08/15/2005 08/15/2005

3 MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF by Intervening Pltfs for leave to intervene. (s) GRANTED ORDER (#10) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
4 LETTER (copy) Cnsl for Intervening Pltfs shl have (45) days to comply w/LR IA 10-2. (cps dist) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT VP & Design for Sayre & Medina obo Ds. sub to LRH (Entered: 05/20/2005)
5 VERIFIED PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO PRACTICE PRO HAC VICE by Federico Castelan Sayre out of state cnsl for Intervening Pltfs. (cps dist) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
6 DESIGNATION OF LOCAL COUNSEL Federico Castelan Sayre hereby desig Matthew Q. Callister as local cnsl for Intervening Pltfs. (cps dist) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
7 VERIFIED PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO PRACTICE PRO HAC VICE by Yolanda M. Medina out of state cnsl for Intervening Pltfs. (cps dist) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
8 DESIGNATION OF LOCAL COUNSEL Yolanda M. Medina hereby desig Matthew Q. Callister as local cnsl for Intervening Pltfs. (cps dist) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
SUMMONS ISSUED (amended) to Pltf (3) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
9 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Pltf w/jd. (Entered: 06/09/2005)
10 ORDER Pltf-Intervenors mtn (#3) is GRANTED. (cps dist) (Entered: 06/16/2005)
15 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT by Intervening Pltfs. (Entered: 07/27/2005)
SUMMONS ISSUED to Pltf (7) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
11 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT by Dfts Caesars and Park Place. (s) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
13 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Dfts Caesars and Park Place. (s) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
12 NOTICE (OTHER) by Clerk that LRL is ENE judge. (cps dist) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
14 SCHEDULING ORDER ENE session has been sched to commence @ 9:30 am on 10/13/05. (cps dist) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
16 AFFIDAVIT by Pltfs/Intervenors of service for Park Place on 8/1/05. (Entered: 08/19/2005)
17 AFFIDAVIT by Pltfs/Intervenors of service for Caesars Palace Corp on 8/1/05. (Entered: 08/19/2005)
18 AFFIDAVIT by Pltfs/Intervenors of service for Caesars Entertainment on 8/1/05. (Entered: 08/19/2005)

9 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

08/26/2005 09/07/2005 09/08/2005 09/16/2005 09/21/2005 09/23/2005 09/26/2005 10/04/2005
10/20/2005 10/31/2005 11/04/2005
11/08/2005
11/15/2005 11/23/2005
11/30/2005
11/30/2005

19 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT to cmplnt in intervention (#15) (m) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
20 ORDER The ENE session bfr Mag Judge LRL is hereby vacated & resched for 1:30 pm on 10/18/05. (cps dist) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
21 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Pltf. (s) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
22 ORDER The ENE session sched for 1:30 pm, 10/18/05, is hereby vacated & resched for 1:30 pm, 11/4/05. (cps dist) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT Jnt Discv plan/sched ord -- to PAL (Entered: 09/21/2005)
23 ORDER Disc ddl 5/3/06; interim status report 3/6/06; dispo mtns 6/2/06; jnt pto 7/3/06. Req to ext disc nlt 4:00 pm, 4/13/06. (cps dist) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
24 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED by Pltf/intervenors to Daniel D. Pineloon 9/13/05. (Entered: 09/27/2005)
25 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Dft Pinelo w/respect to all of Pltfs/Intervenors claims for relief. (s), oppo #26 (fld sep), reply #27 (Entered: 10/05/2005)
26 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION by Pltf/Intervenors to mtn for s/j (#25). (s) (fld sep) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
27 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION by Dft Pinelo to mtn for s/j (#25). (s) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
29 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Early Neutral Evaluation Conference held on 11/4/2005 before Judge George W Foley Jr.. Crtrm Administrator: AXM; Pla Counsel: Cokkie Liem; Def Counsel: Paul Ages; Court Reporter/FTR #: N/A; Time ofHearing: 1:30pm. (AXM, ) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
28 MINUTE ORDER re: Early Neutral Evaluation Seesion Signed by Judge George W Foley Jr. on 11/7/05. No settlement was reached. (AAB) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
30 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Victor Viramontes on behalf of Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (MJZ ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
31 JOINDER to 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; filed by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Park Place Entertainment Corporation. (Attachments: # 1)(MJZ ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
32 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid, Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Juan Gonzalez. Juan Gonzalez served on 11/9/2005, answer due 11/29/2005. (AXM, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
33 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid, Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Ricardo Hernandez. Ricardo Hernandez served on 11/9/2005, answer due 11/29/2005. (AXM, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)

10 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

12/09/2005 12/09/2005 12/09/2005 12/09/2005 12/09/2005 12/09/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/22/2005
01/19/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 02/09/2006

34 MEMORANDUM in support of Opposition filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid, Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. (AXM, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
35 DECLARATION of Yolanda Medina re opposition to 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(AXM, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
36 DECLARATION of Otis Jefferson re 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (AXM, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
37 STATEMENT of Reponse to Ds statement re 31 Response to Motion for Joinder, 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (RFJ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
38 DECLARATION of Tange Johnson by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (RFJ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
39 STATEMENT in support of re 26 Response in Opposition to Motion,, 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (RFJ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
40 ERRATA to 38 Declaration; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (RFJ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
41 DECLARATION of Tange Johnson by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (RFJ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
42 REPLY to Response to 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; filed by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Park Place Entertainment Corporation. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS? JOINDER IN DEFENDANT DANIEL PINELO?S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS? STATE LAW CLAIMS (Spencer, James) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
43 LETTER from Yolanda Medina. (MAJ, ) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
44 ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Re-docketed as Proposed Order Submission by Court. (MJZ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
47 Submission of SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY re 44 Notice (Other); filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Tange Johnson. (MJZ) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
45 VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice submitted by attorney Ella S. Chatterjee, (Filing fee $ 175 receipt number 109586) by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange

11 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

02/27/2006
03/15/2006 03/22/2006
03/23/2006
03/27/2006
03/28/2006 03/28/2006 03/28/2006 04/17/2006 04/17/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/21/2006 04/21/2006 04/25/2006
04/25/2006

Johnson, Elina Masid. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
46 SUPPLEMENT Disclosure of Documents by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
48 NOTICE by Intervenor Plaintiff Jessica Alvarado - Panameo Substitution of Attorney (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
49 STIPULATION to Continue Discovery Plan Deadlines by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
50 ORDER granting 45 Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Ella S. Chatterjee for Candelaria Turcios and Jessica Alvarado Panameo. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/22/06. (AXM, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
51 NOTICE by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid Three Day Notice to Plead (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
52 NOTICE by Intervenor Plaintiff Elina Masid Substitution of Attorney (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
53 NOTICE by Intervenor Plaintiff Jessica Alvarado - Panameo Substitution of Attorney (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
54 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 49 Stipulation to continue discovery. Signed by Judge Peggy A. Leen on 3/28/06. (AXM, ) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
55 ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Re-docketed as Motion to Dismiss by Court on 4/18/06. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
56 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendant Juan Gonzalez. Responses due by 5/5/2006. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
57 ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Re-docketed as Non-Opposition by Court on 4/24/06. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
60 NON-OPPOSITION to 56 MOTION to Dismiss; filed by Defendant Daniel Pinelo. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
58 ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Re-docketed as Motion to Substitute Attorney by Court on 4/24/06. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
59 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Defendant Daniel Pinelo. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
61 ORDER granting 25 Defendant Pinelo's Motion for Summary Judgment with Respect to all Plaintiffs'/Intervenors' Claims for Relief. See order re specs. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 4/23/06. (SL, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
62 ORDER granting 59 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Federico C Sayre for Jessica Alvarado - Panameo added. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 4/21/06. (AAB) (Entered: 04/25/2006)

12 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/02/2006
05/02/2006

63 RESPONSE to filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. Hernandez Motion to Dismiss Replies due by 5/15/2006. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
64 ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Re-docketed as Affidavit by Court on 5/8/06. (MJZ) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
65 ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Re-docketed as Affidavit by Court on 5/8/06. (MJZ) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
66 ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Re-docketed as Affidavit by Court on 5/8/06. (MJZ) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
67 ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Re-docketed as Declaration by Court on 5/8/06. (MJZ) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
68 ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Re-docketed as Exhibit(s) by Court on 5/8/06. (MJZ) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
69 ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Re-docketed as Declaration by Court on 5/8/06. (MJZ) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
75 AFFIDAVIT of Timothy Dillard re 63 Response to Motion to Dismiss; by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (MJZ) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
76 AFFIDAVIT of John Wilks re 63 Response to Motion to Dismiss; by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (MJZ) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
77 AFFIDAVIT of John Wilks re 63 Response to Motion to Dismiss; by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (MJZ) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
78 DECLARATION of Yolanda M. Medina re 63 Response to Motion to Dismiss; by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (MJZ) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
79 EXHIBITS to 63 Response to Motion to Dismiss; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (MJZ) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
80 DECLARATION of Ella S. Chatterjee re 63 Response to Motion to Dismiss; by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (MJZ) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
70 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Plaintiff-Intervenors' Complaint on Defendant Juan Gonzalez by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Sayre, Federico) Modified on 6/21/2006 to activate motion. (BLG). (Entered: 05/02/2006)
71 MOTION for Extension of Time re 70 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Plaintiff-Intervenors' Complaint on Defendant Juan Gonzalez by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Declaration of Ella S.

13 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

05/02/2006 05/02/2006
05/02/2006
05/10/2006 05/12/2006 05/12/2006 05/15/2006

Chatterjee in Support of Motion to Enlarge Time to Serve Complaint on Defendant Juan Gonzalez)(Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
72 First MOTION for Extension of Time Affidavit of Thomas Dillard in Support of Motion to Enlarge time to serve Complaint on Defendant Juan Gonzalez by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
73 First MOTION for Extension of Time Affidavit of John Wilks in Support of Motion to Enlarge Time to Serve Complaint on Defendant Juan Gonzalez re 71 MOTION for Extension of Time re 70 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Plaintiff-Intervenors' Complaint on Defendant Juan Gonzalez, 72 First MOTION for Extension of Time Affidavit of Thomas Dillard in Support of Motion to Enlarge time to serve Complaint on Defendant Juan Gonzalez, 70 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Plaintiff-Intervenors' Complaint on Defendant Juan Gonzalez by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
74 MOTION for Extension of Time [Proposed] Order for Motion to Enlarge Time re 71 MOTION for Extension of Time re 70 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Plaintiff-Intervenors' Complaint on Defendant Juan Gonzalez, 72 First MOTION for Extension of Time Affidavit of Thomas Dillard in Support of Motion to Enlarge time to serve Complaint on Defendant Juan Gonzalez, 73 First MOTION for Extension of Time Affidavit of John Wilks in Support of Motion to Enlarge Time to Serve Complaint on Defendant Juan Gonzalez re 71 MOTION for Extension of Time re 70 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Plaintiff-In, 70 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Plaintiff-Intervenors' Complaint on Defendant Juan Gonzalez by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
81 ERRATA to 56 MOTION to Dismiss; ERRATA TO MOTION TO DEFENDANT RICARDO HERNANDEZ' MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Defendant Daniel Pinelo. (Clayton, Riley) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
82 STIPULATION To Extend Briefing Schedule by Defendant Ricardo Hernandez. (Clayton, Riley) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
83 NOTICE of Change of Address by Riley A. Clayton. (Clayton, Riley) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
84 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order (Emergency Hearing Requested) by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Park Place Entertainment Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Declaration of Veronica Arechedderra Hall in Support of Defendant's Emergency Motion For Protective Order (Emergency Hearing Requested)# 2 Exhibit Exhibits B to D re Defendant's Emergency Motion For Protective Order (Emergency Hearing Requested)# 3 Exhibit Exhibits E to I re Defendant's Emergency Motion For Protective Order (Emergency Hearing Requested))(Westbrook, Deborah) (Entered: 05/15/2006)

14 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

05/16/2006 05/16/2006 05/16/2006 05/19/2006 05/22/2006 05/23/2006
05/25/2006
06/01/2006 06/01/2006 06/06/2006 06/07/2006

85 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendant Juan Gonzalez. Responses due by 6/3/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Jones, Cory) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
86 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Defendant Juan Gonzalez. (Jones, Cory) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
87 ORDER. Responses due by 5/23/2006. Hearing on motion set for 5/25/06 @ 4:00pm Signed by Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/16/06. (AXM, ) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
88 REPLY to Response to 56 MOTION to Dismiss; filed by Defendant Ricardo Hernandez. and Opposition to Motion to Enlarge Time (Clayton, Riley) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
89 ORDER on stipulation re extension to file reply re 56 Defendant Hernandez' MOTION to Dismiss. Replies due by 5/22/2006. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/22/06. (SL, ) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
90 RESPONSE to 84 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order (Emergency Hearing Requested); filed by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J)(Park, Anna) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
91 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 5/25/2006 before Judge Peggy A. Leen. Crtrm Administrator: Jeff Miller; Pla Counsel: Brooke Bohlke, Esq., Connie Liem, Esq.; Def Counsel: Deborah Westbrook, Esq., Veronica Arechederra-Hall, Esq.; Court Reporter/FTR #: 4:01:09 - 4:31:35; Time of Hearing: 4:00pm. RE: 84 Defendants Emergency MOTION for Protective Order. The Court takes this matter under submission and will issue a written order as timely as possible. The parties are instructed to meet and confer regarding any and all outstanding issues regarding the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, and shall file a Joint Status Report by 6/6/2006.A Status Conference will then be held on 6/8/2006 at 03:00 PM in LV Courtroom 3B before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. Should the parties resolve their outstanding issues, this hearing will vacate.(no image attached) (JAM, ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
92 STIPULATION to Extend Briefing Schedule on Defendant Juan Gonzalez' Pending Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Juan Gonzalez. (Jones, Cory) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
93 RESPONSE to 70 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Plaintiff-Intervenors' Complaint on Defendant Juan Gonzalez; filed by Defendant Juan Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Jones, Cory) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
94 STATUS REPORT Regarding Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Liem, Connie) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
95 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 92 Stipulation.On stipulation by the parties, IT IS ORDERED that briefing on defendant Juan Gonzalez' Motion to Dismiss (#85) shall be stayed pending the outcome of Plaintiff-Intervenor's Motion to Enlarge Time (#70). Briefing on the Motion to Dismiss shall not begin until after the Court

15 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

06/08/2006 06/14/2006 06/15/2006
06/15/2006 06/19/2006 06/20/2006 06/27/2006 06/27/2006 06/27/2006 06/28/2006 06/30/2006

rules on the Motion to Enlarge the Time to Serve Juan Gonzalez and the Opposition, if required, shall not be due for fifteen days following the Notice of Entry of Order denying same. If the Court grants the Motion to Enlarge the Time to Serve Juan Gonzalez, Defendant shall withdraw the Motion to Dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Juan Gonzalez shall have through and including June 1, 2006 to file an opposition to the Motion to Enlarge Time to Serve Juan Gonzalez (#70). Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/7/06. (RM, ) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
96 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, U.S. Magistrate Judge on 6/8/2006. June 8, 2006 Status Conference is vacated. By Deputy Clerk: Carol Knight. (AAB) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
99 ORDER denying 84 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Peggy A. Leen on 6/14/06. (MJZ) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
97 ORDER granting 70 Motion for Extension of Time. granting 71 Motion for Extension of Time. granting 72 Motion for Extension of Time. granting 73 Motion for Extension of Time. granting 74 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff-intervenor has until 7/7/06 to serve intervention complaint on defendent. Signed by Judge Peggy A. Leen on 6/13/06. (AXM) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
98 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 to 9# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 10 to 19)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
100 MOTION for Protective Order Defendant's Renewed Motion For Protective Order by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Park Place Entertainment Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A - F (20 pps))(Westbrook, Deborah) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
101 NOTICE by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 100 MOTION for Protective Order Defendant's Renewed Motion For Protective Order. Solely Requesting a Ruling on the Merits (Liem, Connie) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
102 SUBPOENA Returned Executed as to Liliana Nunez. (AXM) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
103 ANSWER to [] Complaint In Intervention by Defendant Juan Gonzalez. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 7/7/2006. Discovery Plan due by 8/11/2006.(Jones, Cory) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
104 STIPULATION and Order to Extend Deadlines for Briefing on Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Park Place Entertainment Corporation. (Westbrook, Deborah) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
105 REPLY to Response to 56 MOTION to Dismiss; filed by Defendant Ricardo Hernandez. Notification of Completion of Briefing and Request for Decision (Clayton, Riley) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
106 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE Executed. Juan Gonzalez Acknowledgement filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica

16 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

07/05/2006 07/06/2006 07/06/2006
07/07/2006 07/07/2006 07/10/2006 07/10/2006
07/18/2006 07/19/2006
07/27/2006 07/31/2006

Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
107 NON-OPPOSITION to 98 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
108 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Juan Gonzalez. Responses due by 7/24/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Jones, Cory) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
109 REPLY to Response to 100 MOTION for Protective Order Defendant's Renewed Motion For Protective Order, 84 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order (Emergency Hearing Requested); filed by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Park Place Entertainment Corporation. Reply in Support of Defendant's Renewed Motion for Protective Order (Westbrook, Deborah) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
110 STIPULATION And Order to Extend Discovery Period (Second Request) by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Park Place Entertainment Corporation. (Westbrook, Deborah) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
111 STATUS REPORT Joint Interim Status Report by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Park Place Entertainment Corporation. (Westbrook, Deborah) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
112 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 104 Stipulation, to file 2nd amended complaint. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/6/06. (AXM) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
113 RESPONSE to 98 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; filed by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Park Place Entertainment Corporation. Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Replies due by 7/24/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A - E# 2 Exhibit Exhibits F - G)(Westbrook, Deborah) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
114 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: 91 Motion Hearing held on 5/25/06 before Judge Peggy A. Leen. Court Reporter: FTR 04:01:10 to 04:31:32. (EDS) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
115 ORDER for Certificate of Interested Parties. IT IS ORDERED that counsel for defendant shall have a period of 10 calendar days from the filing date of this order within which to fully comply with the provisions of Local Rule 10-6. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 7/31/2006. Signed by Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/18/06. (AXM) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
116 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 110 Stipulation, SCHEDULING ORDER. Discovery due by 1/2/2007. Motions due by 2/1/2007. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/3/2007. Signed by Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/25/06. (AXM) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
117 REPLY to Response to 98 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; filed by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(Liem, Connie) (Entered:

17 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

08/08/2006
08/08/2006 08/08/2006 08/08/2006 08/08/2006 08/08/2006 08/08/2006
08/08/2006 08/08/2006
08/08/2006
08/17/2006
08/17/2006 08/17/2006

07/31/2006)
118 RESPONSE to 108 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. Replies due by 8/22/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Response to Defendant Gonzalez' Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of his MSJ# 2 Appendix separate statement of additional undisputed facts in support of Plaintiffs-Intervenors' Opposition# 3 Appendix Table of Contents and Table of Authorities for Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs-Intervenors' Opposition to Defendant Gonzalez' MSJ# 4 Appendix Proof of Service Via Electronic Filing System)(Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
119 ERROR: Wrong event selected. (MJZ) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
120 ERROR: Wrong event selected. (MJZ) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
121 ERROR: Wrong event selected. (MJZ) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
122 ERROR: Wrong event selected. (MJZ) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
123 ERROR: Wrong event selected. (MJZ) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
124 AFFIDAVIT of Candelaria Turcios re 118 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment; by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(MJZ) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
125 AFFIDAVIT of Elina Masid re 118 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment; by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(MJZ) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
126 AFFIDAVIT of Jessica Alvarado Panameno re 118 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment; by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(MJZ) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
127 AFFIDAVIT of Tange Johnson re 118 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment; by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(MJZ) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
NOTICE of Docket Correction to 120 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, 122 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, 119 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, 121 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment: ERROR: Wrong events selected; CORRECTION: Re-docketed as 124 125 126 127 Affidavits by Court. (no image attached)(MJZ) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
128 REPLY to Response to 108 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Defendant Juan Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Jones, Cory) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
NOTICE of Docket Correction to 123 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment: ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Attorney Federico Sayre advised to refile PDFs using "Affidavit" event under the "Other Documents" category. (no image attached)(MJZ) (Entered: 08/17/2006)

18 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

08/22/2006 08/31/2006 09/18/2006 09/18/2006 09/18/2006 09/18/2006 09/18/2006 09/18/2006 09/18/2006

129 ORDER denying 100 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/17/06. (AXM) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
130 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Ricardo Hernandez. Responses due by 9/18/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Clayton, Riley) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
131 RESPONSE to 130 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. PROOF OF SERVICE OF OPPOSITION PLEADINGS TO MSJ OF RICARDO HERNANDEZ Replies due by 10/2/2006. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
132 RESPONSE to 130 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR TANGE JOHNSON'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT RICARDO HERNANDEZ MSJ Replies due by 10/2/2006. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
133 RESPONSE to 130 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. AFFIDAVIT OF TANGE JOHNSON Replies due by 10/2/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Attachments to Affidavit of Tange Johnson in support of Opposition to Ricardo Hernandez MSJ)(Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
134 RESPONSE to 130 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR TANGE JOHNSON'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT RICARDO HERNANDEZ' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS MSJ Replies due by 10/2/2006. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
135 RESPONSE to 130 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR TANGE JOHNSON'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT RICARDO HERNANDES' MSJ Replies due by 10/2/2006. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
136 RESPONSE to 130 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. PLAINTIFF-INTERENORS, ELINA MASID, JESSICA ALVARADO PANAMENO AND CANDELARIA TURCIOS' STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT RICARDO HERNANDEZ' MSJ Replies due by 10/2/2006. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
137 RESPONSE to 130 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. AFFIDAVIT OF ELLA S. CHATTERJEE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFT. RICARDO HERNANDEZ' MSJ Replies due by 10/2/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit "1" to Affidavit of Ella S.

19 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

09/27/2006 09/27/2006 09/27/2006 09/29/2006
09/29/2006 10/02/2006 10/19/2006
10/19/2006
10/19/2006

Chatterjee# 2 Exhibit Exhibit "2" to Affidavit of Ella S. Chatterjee# 3 Exhibit Exhibit "3" to Affidavit of# 4 Exhibit Exhibit "4-A" to Affidavit of Ella S. Chatterjee# 5 Exhibit Exhibit "4-B" to Affidavit of Ella S. Chatterjee# 6 Exhibit Exhibit "5" to Affidavit of Ella S. Chatterjee# 7 Exhibit Exhibit "6-A" to Affidavit of Ella S. Chatterjee# 8 Exhibit Exhibit "6-B" to Affidavit of Ella S. Chatterjee# 9 Exhibit Exhibit "6-C" to Affidavit of Ella S. Chatterjee# 10 Exhibit Exhibit "6-D" to Affidavit of Ella S. Chatterjee# 11 Exhibit Exhibit "6-E" to Affidavit of Ella S. Chatterjee# 12 Exhibit Exhibit "6-F" to Affidavit of Ella S. Chatterjee)(Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
138 ORDER granting 108 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/27/06. (MAJ) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
139 ORDER granting 98 Motion for Leave to File. The Court directs the EEOC to file and serve its amended complaint. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/27/06. (MAJ) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
140 ORDER denying 56 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/27/06. (MAJ) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
141 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand EEOC's Second Amended Complaint against Caesars Palace Corporation, Caesars World, Inc., Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service for EEOC's Second Amended Complaint)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
142 RESPONSE to 130 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. ERRATA - THE INCORRECT DOCUMENT WAS E-FILED. Replies due by 10/13/2006. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
143 REPLY to Response to 130 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Defendant Ricardo Hernandez. (Clayton, Riley) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
144 ANSWER to 141 Amended Complaint Defendants' Answer to EEOC's Second Amended Complaint - Civil Rights, Sex Harassment And Retaliation by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Caesars Palace Corporation, Caesars World, Inc., Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., Park Place Entertainment Corporation.(Westbrook, Deborah) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
145 STIPULATION re 116 Order on Stipulation, Scheduling Order; Stipulation And Order To Extend Discovery Period (Third Request) by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Caesars Palace Corporation, Caesars World, Inc., Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., Park Place Entertainment Corporation. (Arechederra-Hall, Veronica) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
146 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Caesars Palace Corporation, Caesars World, Inc., Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., Park Place Entertainment Corporation. Amended Proof of Service (Westbrook, Deborah) (Entered: 10/19/2006)

20 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

10/24/2006 12/15/2006 12/20/2006 01/19/2007 02/02/2007 03/16/2007
03/19/2007

147 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 145 Stipulation, SCHEDULING ORDER. Discovery due by 4/2/2007. Motions due by 5/2/2007. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 6/1/2007. Signed by Judge Peggy A. Leen on 10/23/06. (AXM) Signing Judge Modified on 10/25/2006 (MJZ). (Entered: 10/24/2006)
148 VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice and DESIGNATION of Local Counsel Matthew J. Salcedo submitted by attorney Federico C. Sayre, (Filing fee $ 175 receipt number 430917) by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
149 ORDER granting 148 Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Matthew J. Salcedo for Candelaria Turcios and Tange Johnson. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 12/18/06. (AXM) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
150 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DISCOVERY PERIOD (FOURTH REQUEST) by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Caesars Palace Corporation, Caesars World, Inc., Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., Park Place Entertainment Corporation. (Westbrook, Deborah) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
151 SCHEDULING ORDER (4th request). Discovery due by 7/2/2007. Motions due by 8/1/2007. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 8/31/2007. Signed by Judge Peggy A. Leen on 1/31/07. (MAJ) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
152 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Larry R. Hicks, U.S. District Judge on 3/16/2007. By Deputy Clerk: Rosemarie Miller. A telephonic status conference has been scheduled on March 19, 2007 at 11:15 a.m. before Judge Larry R. Hicks. All participants may attend by calling: 1-866-208-3441; the confirmation ID number to join the call is 3202704. Questions or concerns may be addressed to Rosemarie Miller, 775-686-5829. All counsel have been previously notified of the date and time for the hearing. (no image attached) (RM) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
153 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Status Conference held on 3/19/2007 before Judge Larry R. Hicks. Crtrm Administrator: Rosemarie Miller; Pla Counsel: Victor Villamontes; Def Counsel: Deborah Westbrook(Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Park Place Entertainment Corp., Desert Palace, Inc.); Riley Clayton (Daniel Pinelo and Ricardo Hernandez); Intervenor's Counsel: Frederico Sayre and Ella Chatterjee; Court Reporter/FTR #: Donna Davidson; Time of Hearing: 11:15 a.m. - 11:31 a.m. Court convenes. The Court notes that the issue before it this morning is whether the Order (61) issued by the Court as to Defendant Pinelo's motion for summary judgment included the claims of negligence contained in the joinder and motion for partial summary judgment filed by Caesars. The Court will review the pleadings and issue a ruling on the instant matter a soon as possible. On motion by counsel, IT IS ORDERED that the discovery deadline will be continued for the amount of time required to resolve this issue. Counsel shall submit a stipulation for continuance of pending deadlines; the Clerk shall submit the stipulation directly to this Court. Court adjourns.(no image attached) (RM) (Entered: 03/19/2007)

21 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

03/27/2007
03/28/2007 04/11/2007 04/18/2007 04/25/2007 04/26/2007
05/01/2007 05/01/2007 05/15/2007 05/31/2007

154 STIPULATION re 61 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment; STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY AND RELATED DEADLINES PENDING A RULING CLARIFYING ORDER NO. 61 by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Caesars Palace Corporation, Caesars World, Inc., Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., Park Place Entertainment Corporation. (Westbrook, Deborah) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
155 ORDER staying discovery dates re 151 Scheduling Order pending decision on motions for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/28/07. (SL, ) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
156 VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice and DESIGNATION of Local Counsel Matthew Q. Callister submitted by attorney Federico C. Sayre, (Filing fee $ 175 receipt number 536131) by Intervenor Plaintiffs Candelaria Turcios, Jessica Alvarado - Panameo, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
157 ORDER granting 156 Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Dennis Frank Minna for Candelaria Turcios and Jessica Alvarado Panameo and approving Designation of Local Counsel. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 4/16/07. (AXM) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
158 ORDER granting 130 Hernandez's Motion for Summary Judgment. It is further ordered that the parties' request for clarification is GRANTED. Plaintiffs'/Intervenors' Eleventh Claim for Relief is hereby DISMISSED. See order re specs. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 4/25/07. (SL, ) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
159 STIPULATION STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER SCHEDULING A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEEN by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Caesars Palace Corporation, Caesars World, Inc., Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., Park Place Entertainment Corporation. (Westbrook, Deborah) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
160 ORDER ON STIPULATION granting 159 Stipulation, to reschedule settlement conference. Settlement Conference set for 5/10/2007 09:30 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. Signed by Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/30/07. (AXM) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
161 ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference: Settlement Conference set for 5/10/2007 09:30 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. Signed by Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/1/07. (AXM) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
162 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, U.S. Magistrate Judge, re: Settlement Conference on 5/15/2007. By Deputy Clerk: Carol Knight. Counsel shall meet within two weeks from entry of this order. Status Conference set for 5/30/2007 04:30 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. (AAB) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
163 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on 5/31/2007. The telephonic status conference scheduled for June 30, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Leen is

22 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

06/01/2007 07/03/2007
07/20/2007 08/20/2007 08/20/2007 08/22/2007 08/22/2007 09/05/2007 09/06/2007

ADVANCED TO FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 2007, AT 4:00 p.m. (no image attached) (DLM, ) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
164 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on 6/1/2007. Telephonic status conference set for 6/30/07 if settlement papers are not filed. Parties' obligations to Order 151 are stayed to finalize settlement. (AXM) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
165 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on 7/3/2007. By Deputy Clerk: Carol Knight. RE: Stay imposed by 164 Minute Order is lifted. Deadlines scheduled by 151 Scheduling Order are extended for 30 days as follows: Discovery due by 8/1/2007. Motions due by 8/31/2007. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 9/30/2007. Telephonic Status Conference set for 7/20/2007 09:30 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AAB) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
166 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on 7/20/2007. Telephonic Status Conference. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AXM) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
167 STIPULATED/CONSENT JUDGMENT [Proposed] Consent Decree; Order by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Park, Anna) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
168 STIPULATION Stipulation to Dismiss Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Park Place Entertainment Corp., Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., Caesars World, Inc., and Caesars Palace Corp. with Prejudice by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Park, Anna) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
169 ORDER ON STIPULATION granting 168 Stipulation to Dismiss Defendants With Prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 8/22/07. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AXM) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
170 CONSENT Decree; ORDER. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 8/22/07. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AXM) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
171 STIPULATION re 170 Consent Judgment ; Request to Incorporate Attached Exhibit into Consent Decree by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Notice)(Morrison, Angela) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
172 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Larry R. Hicks, U.S. District Judge, on 9/6/2007. By Deputy Clerk: Rosemarie Miller. At the request of counsel for defendant, a telephonic status conference is scheduled on September 7, 2007 at 8:30 AM in Reno Courtroom 5 before Judge Larry R. Hicks. The parties are directed to call the following number to participate in the conference: 1-877-492-4020, Conference ID No.: 702-862-7711.(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed by NEF - RM) (Entered: 09/06/2007)

23 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

09/07/2007 09/07/2007
09/12/2007 09/13/2007 09/14/2007 09/27/2007 09/28/2007

173 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Larry R. Hicks, U.S. District Judge, on 9/7/2007. Pursuant to status conference held on 09/07/2007, attorney Moore is directed to file a motion re his lien for attorney's fees in compliance with LR 54-16 by Friday, 09/14/2007, Motions due by 9/14/2007. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
174 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/7/2007 before Judge Larry R. Hicks. Crtrm Administrator: Rosemarie Miller; Pla Counsel: Angela Morrison; Platiff-Intervenor Counsel: Federico Sayre; Def Counsel: Veronic Arechederra-Hall; Court Reporter/FTR #: Donna Davidson; Time of Hearing: 8:34 a.m. - 8:57 a.m. Courtroom: 5. Court convenes. Thomas J. Moore is also present telephonically. The Court notes this hearing has been scheduled at defendant's request for guidance with regard to distribution of settlement proceeds pursuant to the Consent Decree dated August 22, 2007. Ms. Hall notes that Mr. Moore has filed notices of lien for attorney's fees and costs against four of the plaintiff-intervenors and one class member. After discussion, it is agreed that the claims for attorney's fees and costs do not affect distribution of settlement proceeds to the four plaintiff-intervenors. Mr. Moore states he has withdrawn the notice of lien against the class member who will receive settlement funds. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that defendant will distribute settlement funds pursuant to the Consent Decree to plaintiff-intervenors Jessica Alvarado, Tange Johnson, Elina Masid and Candelaria Turcios. Settlement funds will also be disbursed to class member, Marysol Herrera. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than September 14, 2007, Mr. Moore will file a motion for attorney's fees; responses thereto will be filed no later than September 21, 2007. If Mr. Moore and Mr. Sayre can negotiate a stipulation with regard to the potential amount that may be due to Mr. Moore, defendant is authorized to release the balance of the funds, held pursuant to the contingency fee agreement, to Mr. Sayre. A copy of the stipulation, if any, shall be provided to the Court. Court adjourns. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed by NEF - RM) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
176 ORDER ON STIPULATION granting 171 Stipulation to incorporate Exhibit. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/10/07. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AXM) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
175 STIPULATION by Intervenor Plaintiff Elina Masid. (Sayre, Federico) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
177 ORDER approving 175 parties' Stipulation to release all liens. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/14/07. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF SL) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
178 STIPULATION STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE by Defendants Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Desert Palace, Inc, Caesars Palace Corporation, Caesars World, Inc., Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., Park Place Entertainment Corporation. (Arechederra-Hall, Veronica) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
179 ORDER ON STIPULATION granting 178 Stipulation, for dismissal. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/28/07. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AXM) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

24 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 3.1.2

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?793118177841826-L_19...

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

03/06/2008 13:32:20

wu0079 Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL

17

Cost:

1.36

25 of 25

3/6/2008 3:33 PM

 </s> Caesars Palace Subjected Class of Kitchen Workers To Sexual Harassme...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-4-05.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 4, 2005

CONTACT:

Anna Y. Park Regional Attorney (213) 894-1080

TTY:

Gregory L. McClinton Trial Attorney (213) 894-1053 (213) 894-1121

CAESARS PALACE SUBJECTED CLASS OF KITCHEN WORKERS TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT, EEOC CHARGES

Suit Says Vegas Hotel's Kitchen Workers Severely Harassed Over Years
LOS ANGELES - A class of kitchen workers was severely sexually harassed by supervisors for years at famed Las Vegas hotel/casino Caesars Palace, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in an employment discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC also said Caesars management illegally retaliated against employees for complaining about the abuse.
The EEOC's suit, EEOC v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., et al., CV-S-05-0427-LRH-PAL., was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against hotel and casino giant Caesars Entertainment, Inc. / Park Place Entertainment Corporation. The EEOC alleges that since 2000, kitchen workers at Caesars Palace were victimized by egregious harassment, including:
A supervisor trying to have forced sex with a worker when she was four months pregnant;
Another supervisor exposing himself to the same employee three to four times, making lewd suggestions and forcing her hand to his private parts;
A third supervisor showing another worker nude pictures, forcibly grabbing her breasts, buttocks and kissing her as he exposed himself and performed lewd acts on her;
Yet another supervisor grabbing an employee by her hair and forcing her face to his private parts and forcing oral sex on her;
Other instances of fondling the charging parties and demanding oral sex;
Supervisors offering favorable treatment in exchange for sex.
The suit also charges that employees who complained about the harassment by supervisors were subjected to retaliation in the form of demotion, loss of wages, further harassment, discipline or discharge.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation. The EEOC filed suit after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.
The Regional Attorney for the EEOC's Los Angeles District Office, Anna Park, added, "All sexual harassment is wrong and illegal. The EEOC is absolutely determined to stop this misconduct."
Olophius Perry, District Director of the EEOC's Los Angeles District Office, said, "Employees need to be encouraged to report harassment of all kinds. Disciplining or discharging an employee for trying to do what is required under the law is simply wrong, and the EEOC will be steadfast in protecting employees against acts of retaliation."
Caesars Entertainment / Park Place Entertainment identifies itself as one of the world's leading gaming companies, with $4.5 billion in annual net revenue and 28 properties in five countries on four continents. The company has its corporate headquarters in Las Vegas, Nev., where it operates Caesars Palace and three other major casino resorts.
In addition to enforcing Title VII, the EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects workers age 40 and older from discrimination based on age; the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits gender-based wage discrimination; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the federal sector; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov, or by calling (800) 669-4000.

1 of 2

5/22/2007 1:22 PM

Caesars Palace Subjected Class of Kitchen Workers To Sexual Harassme...
This page was last modified on April 4, 2005. Return to Home Page

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-4-05.html

2 of 2

5/22/2007 1:22 PM


[CONTENT] Los Angeles | EEOC | Caesar's Entertainment, Inc. | March 2005 | the U.S. District Court | Nevada ||| Caesar | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act | 1964 ||| June 2005 | State ||| August 2007 ||| U.S. | Caesars Entertainment, Inc. | 237 | Defendants' Renewed Motion for Protective Order | U.S. | Caesars Entertainment | 2006 | 1168840 ||| Defendant Pinelo's | U.S. | Caesars Entertainment, Inc. | 2007 | WL 1231776 | D.Nev | 2007 | Defendant Hernandez's ||| Caesar ||| Caesar | Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant ||| three years | EEOC ||| Caesar | thirty days | EEOC ||| 850,000.00 | Caesar | EEOC ||| three years ||| 2010 [SUMMARY] The Los Angeles district office of the EEOC brought this suit against Caesar's Entertainment, Inc., a major casino corporation, and related corporate entities in March 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.  The complaint alleged that kitchen employees employed by Caesar's were subjected to ongoing and extreme sexual harassment, and were retaliated against for complaints about the hostile work environment produced by this harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Some of the complainants intervened in June 2005, adding various State law claims.  The parties settled the case in August 2007 by entry of a consent decree.  There are several published opinions: U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428 (D.Nev. 2006) (denying Defendants' Renewed Motion for Protective Order); U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, 2006 WL 1168840 (D.Nev. 2006) (granting Defendant Pinelo's Motion for Summary Judgment); and U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 2007 WL 1231776 (D.Nev. 2007) (granting Defendant Hernandez's Motion for Summary Judgment).

The consent decree included non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses, required the expungement of complainants' employment records, and required Caesar's to provide neutral references for complainants.  Caesar's was required to work with an Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant to develop its non-discrimination and non-retaliation policy, to create a training program that would educate employees about discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and to help develop and monitor the complaint and investigation process.  The decree, in effect for three years, also required regular reporting to the EEOC on complaints and on the non-discrimination and non-retaliation policy, which was to be distributed to employees and posted.  In case of non-compliance, Caesar's would have thirty days to remedy the problem, after which the EEOC would be entitled to ask the court to enforce the decree.  Additionally, $850,000.00 is to be paid by Caesar's to individual complainants and to similarly situated employees identified by the EEOC. The settlement term was three years.  The docket sheet does not show any further enforcement; the case was presumably closed in 2010.
