( ~"

1 RICHARD R. TRUJILLO MARY JO O'NEILL #005924

FILED RECEIVED _

LODGED COpy

2 SALLY C. SHANLEY #012251
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSIO

SEP 3 0 1S99

3 Phoenix District Office

3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 4 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Telephone: (602) 640-5032

Cl.ERK USoDr IOSFTRAIRCITZOCONAURT

BY

C DepUTY

5

Attorneys for Plaintiff

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
11 COMMISSION,

12

Plaintiff,

~ETING ;: DIRECT

SERVICES,

)

)

~

)

ClV.

l eN '99 176 6PHX S M

INC.,an Arizona Corporation;

)

COMPLAINT

15 ACMR ENTERPRISES, INC., a foreign

)

corporation; UNIVERSAL TELESERVICES

)

16 NETWORK CORP., a foreign corporation;

)

WRY TRIAL DEMAND

UNIVERSAL TELESERVICES ARIZONA CORP,)

17 an Arizona corporation; CSG, INC., an Arizona )

corporation

)

18

)

Defendants.

)

19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )

20

21

NATURE OF THE ACTION

22

23

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

24 Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race, sex, national

25 origin, pregnancy and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Robert Ballance, Regina

26 Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, George Diggs, Denise Hamilton, Jasop. Hughes, Tevis

27 Mack, Gracie Rangel, Rebecca Williams and a class of similarly situated individuals who were

28 adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that the Defendants discriminated

in a variety of ways against a class of individuals because of their race (African American), their

"

1 associations with African Americans, their sex (African American women and pregnant women),

2 national origin (Hispanic.) In addition, the commission alleges that employess were retaliated

3 against for opposing discriminatory practices.

4

5

JURlSDICTION AND VENUE

6

7

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

8 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706 (f)(1) and (3) of

9 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) ("Title

10 VIlli) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1191, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

11

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were, and are now, being

12 committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

13

14

PARTIES

15

16

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the t1Commission"), is

17 the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and

18 enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706 ofTitIe

19 VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3).

20

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, DIRECT MARKETING SERVICES, INC., an

21 Arizona corporation, ACMR ENTERPRISES, INC., a foreign corporation, UNIVERSAL

22 TELESERVICES ARIZONA CORP., a foreign corporation, UNIVERSAL TELESERVICES

23 NETWORK. CORP., a foreign corporation, and CSG, INC., an Arizona corporation

24 ("Defendants or Employers") have been doing business in the State of Arizona, and have had at

25 least 15 employees.

26

5. Upon information and belief, ACMR ENTERPRISES, INC.,

27 UNIVERSAL TELESERVICES ARIZONA CORP, UNIVERSAL TELESERVICES

28 NETWORK. CORP AND CSG, INC. are holding companies, parent companies and/or

2

1 successors, directly or indirectly, of DIRECT MARKETING SERVICES, INC., and are

2 independently or vicariously liable for the acts set forth in this complaint.

3

6. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged in an

4 industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42

5 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

6

7

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

8

9

7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Robert Ballance,

10 Regina Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, George Diggs, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes,

11 Tevis Mack. Gracie Rangel and Rebecca Williams filed charges with the Commission alleging

12 violations of Title VII by Defendant Employers. All conditions precedent to the institution of

13 this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

14

8. Since at least August of 1995, Defendant Employers have engaged in unlawful

15 employment practices at their Scottsdale, Arizona and Peoria, Arizona facilities, in violation of

16 Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-'2(a) by racially discriminating against Robert

17 Ballance, Regina Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, George Diggs, Denise Hamilton, Jason

18 Hughes, Tevis Mack, and a class of African American employees. These violations include:

19

1. Race discrimination in wages, failure to promote, demotion and discharge;

20

2. Racial harassment and a racially hostile work environment, and;

21

3. Discriminatory terms and conditions of employment based on race.

22

9. Since at least August of 1995, Defendant Employers have engaged in unlawful

23 employment practices at their Scottsdale, Arizona and Peoria, Arizona facilities, in violation of

24 Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by intersectional racial and sexual

25 discrimination against Regina Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, Denise Hamilton and a

26 class of African American female employees. These violations include:

27

a. Lower wages;

28

b. Failure to promote;

3

1

c. Demotion, and;

2

d. Discharge.

3

10. Since at least August of 1995, Defendant Employers have engaged in unlawful

4 employment practices at their Scottsdale, Arizona and Peoria, Arizona facilities in violation of

5 Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by retaliating against Robert Ballance, Kathy

6 Denman, George Diggs, Jason Hughes, Rebecca Williams and a class of similarly situated

7 individuals and a class of employees for opposing discriminatory practices.

8

11. Since at least August of 1995, Defendant Employers have engaged in unlawful

9 employment practices at their Scottsdale, Arizona and Peoria, Arizona facilities, in violation of

10 Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by discriminating against Gracie Rangel and

11 a class of similarly situated individuals on the basis of national origin and creating a hostile work

12 environment because of national origin (Hispanic).

13

12. Since at least August of 1995, Defendant Employers has engaged in unlawful

14 employment practices at their Peoria, Arizona facility, in violation of Section 703 (a) of Title VII,

15 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by racially discriminating against Rebecca Williams and a class of

16 similarly situated individuals for their association with African Americans.

17

13. Since at least August of 1995, Defendant Employers has engaged in unlawful

18 employment practices at their Scottsdale, Arizona and Peoria, Arizona facilities, in violation of

19 Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by discriminating against Denise Hamilton

20 on the basis of her sex -female and her pregnancy

21

14. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 8-13 above has been to

22 deprive Robert Ballance, Regina Battle, Audria Clayton ,Kathy Denman, George Diggs, Denise

23 Hamilton, Jason Hughes, Tevis Mack, Gracie Rangel, Rebecca Williams and a class of similarly

24 situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their

25 status as employees, because of their race, sex and/or national origin.

26

15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8~13 above were

27 and are intentional.

28

16. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8-13 above were

4

.~.

1 and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Robert

2 Ballance, Regina Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, George Diggs, Denise Hamilton, Jason

3 Hughes, Tevis Mack, Gracie Rangel, Rebecca Williams and a class of similarly situated

4 individuals.

5

PMYER FOR RELIEF

6

7

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

8

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant employers, their officers,

9 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in

10 wage discrimination, failure to promote, demotion, harassment, discharge, retaliation and any

11 other" employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race, national origin, sex or

12 retaliation.

13

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

14 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African Americans, African

15 American women, pregnant women, employees who associate with African Americans,

16 Hispanics and employees who oppose discriminatory practices and which eradicate the effects of

17 their past and present unlawful employment practices.

18

"C. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Robert Ballance, Regina Battle,

19 Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, George Diggs, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, Tevis Mack,

20 Gracie Rangel, Rebecca Williams and a class of similarly situated individuals by providing

21 appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other

22 affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices,

23 including but not limited to reinstatement, front pay andlor promotion of Robert Ballance,

24 Regina Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, George Diggs, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes,

25 Tevis Mack, Gracie Rangel, Rebecca Williams and a class of similarly situated individuals.

26

D. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Robert Ballance, Regina Battle,

27 Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, George Diggs, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, Tevis Mack,

28 Gracie Rangel, Rebecca Williams and a class of similarly situated individuals by providing

5

_.' ..

1 compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment

2 practices described in paragraphs 8-13 above in amounts to be determined at trial.

3

E. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Robert Ballance, Regina Battle,

4 Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, George Diggs, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, Tevis Mack,

5 Gracie Rangel, Rebecca Williams and a class of similarly situated individuals by providing

6 compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices

7 complained of in paragraphs 8-13 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,

8 mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

9

F. , Order Defendant Employers to pay Robert Ballance, Regina Battle, Audria

10 Clayton, Kathy Denman, George Diggs, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, Tevis Mack, Gracie

11 Rangel, Rebecca Williams and a class of similarly situated individuals punitive damages for

12 their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 8-13 above, in amounts to be

13 determined at trial.

14

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

15 interest.

16

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

17

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

18

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

19

20

DATED this~ day of~999

21

22

Respectfully submitted,

23

C. GREGORY STEWART

General Counsel Designate

24

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

25

Associate General Counsel

26

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

27

1801 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20507

28

6

-_ _ -_ _. ..-

- - . -

'-'-

... ..

.... ----_.... _ - - - - - --' - - - - - - - ,

,_I
1 2 3 4 5
6
7 8
9
10 11 12
13 S:\LEGAL\DMS\DMS complaint.wpd
9/27/99
14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26
27 28

''-Y)
eeq~
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Phoenix District Office 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 640-5032 Attorneys for Plaintiff
7

- - - - -~----- ----------- ------------------ -----~----~----------

- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - -

~---~----------~-----,

 </s> .....---.
1 RICHARD R. TRUJILLO MARy Jo O'NEILL #005924
2 SALLY C. SHANLELY# 012251 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
3 COMMISSION Phoenix District Office
4 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
5 (602) 640-5032

FrlED _ LODG '
- RECEIVED _ COpy':
MAY 052000

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9

United States Employment

10 Opportunity Commission,

CV 99-1766 PHX S:MM:

11

Plaintiff,

12 Regina Battle, Auaria Clayton,
13 Kathy Denman,
Denise Hamilton, 14 Jason Hugp.es,
Tevis Mack,
15 Rodney Kaufinan,

CONSENT DECREE

16

ApplicantslIntervenors,

17

VS.

18 OrviS Direct :Marketing Services, Inc., a foreign corporation; ACMR
19 Enterprises, Inc., a foreign corporation; Universal Teleservices
20 Network Corp., a foreign corporation;
Universal Teleservices Arizona 21 Corp., an Arizona corporation,

22

Defendants.

23

24

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

25 Commission or EEOC) filed this action against Direct Marketing Services, Inc.,

26 AC:MR Enterprises, Inc., Universal Teleservices Network Corp., and Universal

27 Teleservices Arizona Corp. (collectively" Defendants" or "the Company") to

28 enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (Title

------~- ----- - - - - - - - - - _ . _ - - - . _ - - - - - - - - - - - -

..

VII) and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §1981a. In the complaint the

2 Commission alleged that certain DMS employees discriminated in a variety of

3 ways against a class of individuals because of their race (African American), their

4 associations with African Americans, their sex (African American women and

5 pregnant women) and their national origin (Hispanic.) In addition, the

6 commission alleged that employees were retaliated against for opposing

7 discriminatory practices.

8

The parties do not object to the jurisdiction ofthe Court over this action

9 and waive their rights to a hearing and the entry of findings of fact and

10 conclusions oflaw.

11

In the interest of resolving this matter and as a r~sult of having engaged in

12 comprehensive settlement negotiations the parties have agreed that this action

13 should be finally resolved by entry of this Decree.

14

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED;

15

1. This decree resolves all claims ofthe Commission, those it

16 represents and all putative class members against defendants, including back pay,

17 compensatory and punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees

18 and costs arising out ofthe issues in this lawsuit.

19

20

INJUNCTION

21

2. Direct Marketing Services, Inc., ACMR Enterprises, Inc., Universal

22 Teleservices Network Corp., Universal Teleservices Arizona Corp., and its

23 office'rs, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert

24 or participation with it, are permanently enjoined for the duration ofthe decree

25 from (a) racial discrimination, including harassment; (b) gender discrimination,

26 including pregnancy; (c) discrimination based on national origin and (b)

27 retaliation against any employee because he or she (i) opposed discriminatory

28 practices made unlawful by Title VII, (ii) filed a charge or is assisting or

2

,.

1 participating in the filing ofa charge of discrimination, or (iii) assisted or

2 participated in an investigation or proceeding brought under Title VII.

3

4

MONETARY RELIEF

5

3. Judgment is entered in favor ofthe Commission and against

6 Defendants in the amount of$700,000. The monetary relief and penalties for

7 non-payment are to be paid to the eleven charging parties pursuant to the attached

8 Settlement Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein

9 by reference.

10

4. Defendants shall pay the settlement amount separately to each

11 EEOC charging party by check, cashier's check, or money order, in accordance

12 with Exhibit A. These payments represent settlement of compensatory damages.

13 The defendant will issue 1099 fonns for all payments.

14

5. The checks provided for in Paragraph 4 of this decree shall be

15 mailed directly by Defendants to each charging party at the addresses supplied by

16 the Commission. Within three business days of issuance of the checks,

17 Defendants shall submit a copy of each check and related correspondence to the

18 Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 3300 North

19 Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona, 85012. Issuance and mailing ofthe

20 checks shall constitute compliance with the payment obligation set forth herein.

21

22

OTHER RELIEF

23

6. Defendants shall take steps to institute corrective action against the

24 alleged discriminating officials, including Ben Reeves. This action will include a

25 written reprimand to be placed in Mr. Reeves' personnel file.

26

7. Defendants shall expunge from the personnel files of each charging

27 party of all references to the charges of discrimination filed against defendant or

28 their participation in this action, and any derogatory documents which related to

3

- - - - _...._._-._---_... _- ._-_..._.-- ._---~

"-"

1 complaints or investigation of complaints of race discrimination, intersectional

2 race/sex discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, associational discrimination,

3 or national origin discrimination.

4

8. Defendants shall provide each of the eleven charging parties with a

5 written apology on ACMR letterhead and signed by Steve Singer, as shown at

6 Exhibit B attached.

7

9. Defendants shall institute and carry out policies and practices that

8 help assure a work environment free from race discrimination, intersectional

9 race/sex discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, associational discrimination,

10 or national origin discrimination of its employees and that allow employees to

11 raise concerns or complaints without retaliation about matters, whether alleged,

12 perceived or actual, made unlawful by Title VII. To assist Defendants in its

13 efforts to assure a work environment free of discrimination and retaliation,

14 Defendants shall take the actions provided in ,~ 10-19.

15

16

DEFENDANT'S CORRECTIVE POLICIES AND PRACTICES

17

10. Defendants shall post for the duration of this decree, in a prominent

18 place frequented by its employees at its facilities, the notice attached as Exhibit C.

19 The notice shall be the same type, style and size as Exhibit C.

20

11. Defendants shall provide training on race discrimination,

21 intersectional race/sex discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, associational

22 discrimination, national origin discrimination and retaliation, according to the

23 following terms:

24

A. Defendants shall retain and pay for consultantllecturer(s),

25 acceptable to the Commission, who shall provide consultation and training for a

26 period of two years from the date ofthis decree. At least sixty (60) days prior to

27 the proposed training session, defendant shall submit the name(s), addressees),

28 telephone number(s) and resume(s) of the proposed consultantllecturer(s),

4

'-

..---- i

1 together with the dates of the proposed training session and an outline of the

2 contents of the training to the Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity

3 Commission, 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012.

4 The Commission shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of the information

5. described above to accept or reject the proposed consultant/lecturer and/or the

6 contents of the seminar. In the event the Commission does not approve the

7 designated consultant/lecturer and/or the contents of the training, the Commission

8 and Defendants shall attempt to resolve the matter.

9

B. During each of the next two years, the consultant/lecturer(s)

10 shall conduct one live seminar training session each year. The live session one

11 shall be for taping purposes and will be for executives, supervisors, human

12 resource personnel and top management. All of Defendants' supervisory, human

13 resource, and management employees, who are employed by the Defendant more

14 than 90 days, shall attend the live seminar sessions in both years. All of

15· Defendants' non-supervisory employees, who are employed by the Defendants

16 more than 90 days, shall watch the videotaped showing of the live session in both

17 years. Defendants shall keep a written record of all employees who are required

i 8 to watch the videotaped training and who attend the live training. Defendants

19 may at its election have duplicative videotaped sessions to accommodate staffing

20 needs. Defendants shall be responsible for any additional costs to provide such

21 duplicative sessions.

22

C. During the first year, 2000, the seminar-training session shall

23 be conducted within four months of the entry of this decree. For the second year,

24 the seminar-training session shall be conducted between 8 and 10 months after

25 the completion of the preceding session.

26

D. The seminar-training sessions shall be no less than one hour,

27 plus 15-30 minutes of questions and answers. All personnel, designated in

28 paragraph B, shall both register and attend the seminar-training session. The

5

,.

1 registry of attendance shall be retained by Defendants for the duration ofthe

2 decree.

3

E. The seminars shall include the subject of what constitutes

4 race discrimination, intersectional race/sex discrimination, pregnancy

5 discrimination, associational discrimination, national origin discrimination and

6 retaliation; that race harassment, race discrimination sexual harassment and

7 retaliation in the hiring, firing, compensation, assignment or other terms,

8 conditions or privileges of employment violates Title VII; how to prevent

9 discrimination, harassment and retaliation; how to provide a work environment

10 free from discrimination, harassment and retaliation; and to whom and by what

11 means employees may complain ifthey feel they have been subjected to

12 discrimination, harassment or retaliation in the workplace. The session shall also

13 review and explain Defendants's policies set out in Paragraph 15 of this decree.

14

F. During the live training session, defendant's Chief Executive

15 Officer shall speak to the employees about the discipline that can be taken against

16 supervisors, managers and employees at Defendants who commit acts of

17 discrimination, harassment or retaliation or allow discrimination, harassment or

18 retaliation to occur in the workplace, the importance of maintaining an

19 environment free of discrimination, and Defendants's policy in regard to

20 discrimination and retaliation referred to in Paragraph 15 of this decree.

21

12. .The Commission, at its discretion, may designate Commission

22 representatives to attend and participate in the seminar-training sessions, and the

23 representatives shall have the right to attend and fully participate in the sessions.

24

13. Within thirty days of the entry of this decree, Defendants shall revise

25 its written policy concerning discrimination and retaliation to confonn with the

26 law and submit the policy for review to the Regional Attorney ofthe Phoenix

27 District Office of the EEOC. This written policy must include at a minimum:

28

A. A strong and clear commitment to a workplace free of race

6

discrimination, intersectional race/sex discrimination, pregnancy discrimination,

2 associational discrimination, or national origin discrimination;

3

B. A clear and strong encouragement ofpersons who believe

4 they have been discriminated against to come forward;

S-

C. A description of the consequences, up to and including

6 termination, that will be imposed upon violators of the policy;

7

D. A promise of maximum feasible confidentiality for persons

8 who believe that they have been discriminated against in violation of the policy;

9

E. An assurance of non-retaliation for persons who believe they

10 have been discriminated against and witnesses;

11

F. That race discrimination, intersectional race/sex

12 discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, associational discrimination, or

13 national origin discrimination by all persons, including management officials,

14 supervisors, vendors, suppliers, third parties and customers is prohibited and will

15 not be tolerated;

16

G. The identification of specific individuals, internal and

17 external to Defendants, with their telephone numbers, to whom employees who

18 have been subject to race discrimination, h,tersectional race/sex discrimination,

19 pregnancy discrimination, associational discrimination, or national origin

20 discrimination can report the discrimination, including a written statement that the

21 employee may report the harassment to designated persons outside of their chain

22 of management.

23

H. Assurances that Defendants will investigate allegations of

24 race discrimination, intersectional race/sex discrimination, pregnancy

25· discrimination, associational discrimination, or national origin discrimination

26 promptly, fairly, reasonably and effectively by appropriate investigators and that

27 appropriate corrective action will be taken by Defendants to make victims whole

28 and to eradicate the discrimination;

7

,--.

.._.,~

1

These policies shall be transmitted to Defendants employees by its CEO

2 and distributed to each current employee within thirty days ofthe entry ofthe

3 decree. These policies shall be distributed to all new employees when hire. These

4 policies also shall be posted in a prominent place frequented by the employees.

5

14. Defendants shall institute a procedure which evaluates supervisors,

6 managers and applicable human resources personnel on their performance in

7 responding to complaints of discrimination and for their compliance with EEG

8 laws, including Title VII. The failure of such an employee to enforce the policies

9 and the anti-discrimination laws must result in disciplinary action.

10

15. Defendants shall promptly and appropriately investigate all

11 complaints of race discrimination, intersectional race/sex discrimination,

12 pregnancy discrimination, associational discrimination, or national origin

13 discrimination. The investigation must include a finding of whether

14 discrimination occurred, a credibility assessment, if necessary; interviews of all

15 potential victims and witnesses identified; and concurrent notes of the

16 investigation. Defendants shall take immediate appropriate corrective action to

17 make discrimination victims whole, to discipline violators and to eradicate the

18 discrimination.

19

16. Defendants shall not retain documents related to the investigation in

20 any of the victims' personnel files. All disciplinary actions taken against

21 employees for violation of Defendants's policy will be retained in the violator's

22 personnel file. In those cases in which no conclusion could be reached on the

23 allegations, the investigation documents shall remain in the alleged violator's file.

24

25

REPORTING BY DEFENDANT AND ACCESS BY EEOC

26

17. Defendants shall report in writing and in affidavit form to the

27 Regional Attorney of the Commission's Phoenix District Office at 3300 N. Central

28 Ave., Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, beginning six months from the date of

8

1 the entry of this decree, and thereafter every six months for the duration of the

2 decree the following information:

3

A. Any changes, modifications, revocations, or revisions to its

4 policies and procedures which concern or affect the subject of race discrimination,

S intersectional race/sex discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, associational

6 discrimination, national origin discrimination or retaliation.

7

B. The name, address, position, social security number and

8 telephone number of any individual who has brought allegations of discrimination

9 and/or retaliation against Defendants personnel, formal or informal, including, but

10 not limited to, management officials, vendors, agents, employees and/or

11 customers, during the six months preceding the report. The nature of the

12 complaint, investigatory efforts made by Defendants and the corrective action

13 taken, if any, shall be specified.

14

C. The registry of persons attending the live seminars required in

15 Paragraph 11 of this decree, a list of current personnel employed by Defendants

16 on the days of the seminar~training sessions, and a copy of the written record

17 required for the videotaped training sessions required in Paragraph 11.

18

D. Confinnation that (i) the Notice required in paragraph ten of

19 this decree was posted and the locations where it was posted, (ii) the policies

20 required in paragraph fifteen were distributed to each current and new employee

21 and posted, and (iii) the expungement from each charging party's personnel file as

22 required in paragraph seven of this decree took place, the date of the

23 expungement, and the specific documents expunged.

24

F. A copy of each apology letter mailed pursuant to Paragraph 8.

25

18. The Commission, upon reasonable notice, shall have the right to

26 enter and inspect Defendants's premises to insure compliance with this decree and

27 Title VII's prohibition of race discrimination, intersectional race/sex

28 discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, associational discrimination, national

9

- - - - - _ . --------

"--

1 origin discrimination and retaliation.

2

COSTS AND DURATION

3 19. Each party shall bear its costs and attorney's fees incurred as a result of this

4 action through the filing of this decree.

5

20. The duration of this decree shall be two years from its entry. This

6 Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the duration of the decree,

7 during which the Commission may petition this Court for compliance with this

8 decree. Should the Court determine that defendant has not complied with this

9 decree, appropriate relief, including extension of this decree for such period as

10 may be necessary to remedy its non-compliance, may be ordered. This decree

11 shall expire by its own terms at the end of twenty-four months from the date of

12 entry, without further action by the parties.

13

21. The parties agree to entry of this decree and judgment subject to

14 final approval by the Court.

15

ENTERED AND ORDERED this ~ day of m ~

,2000.

16

17

18

--:lhe:lOIlotabieStephen rv1. McNamee

United States DistrIct Court Judge

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

1

2

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSIO

3

4

5 101. Central Ave., Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
6 Attorneys for Defendants

7

0'1 ;U-llJ-iJ,l 8 THE LANGERMAN LAW OFFICES Supervisory't i I ttorney

~J;fJ..~ ~~J~~LhE~ Y ~e 9

{I2,J/~fi

The Langerman Law Offices 2020 North Central Ave., Suite 1150

Trial Attorney

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

12 Attorneys for Applicants/Intervenors

Phoenix District Office

Battle, Denman, Hamilton, Hughes,

3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690

13 Mack, Kaufman and Clayton

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Attorneys for Plaintiff

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

EXHIBIT A
Settlement Agreement
Mary Jo O:Neill, representative for the EEOC and charging parties George Diggs, Robert Balance, Rebecca Williams and Gracie Rangel and Amy G. Langennan, representative for Regina Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, Tevis Mack, Rodney Kaufman, (hereinafter charging parties) and Tad Schleier, on behalf ofDMS Direct Marketing Services, Inc., ACMR Enterprises, Inc., Universal Teleservices Arizona Corp, Universals Teleservices Network Corp, CSG, (hereinafter defendants), having attended a settlement conference this date, and the matter having settled, the following tenns are agreed upon, including attorneys' fees and costs:
1. Defendants will pay a total of$700,000, as follows:
$150,000 on or before June 15,2000. $350,000 on or before October 25, 2000. $200,000 on or before December 29, 2000.
~.z: Defendant's counsel will sign a stipulation for entry ofjudgment in the amount of$l,OOO,OOO made payable to plaintiffs and against all defendants which includes admissions of liability and of wilful and intentional discrimination, prepared by counsel for charging parties.. This stipulation will be signed within 5 days of the date of this agreement. Plaintiffs may file the stipulation for entry ofjudgment if defendants are in default on any of the above payments, provided however, that if defendants are in default, counsel for charging parties agree to give written notice to Tad Schleier of the default and a 15 day additional period to cure the default
(subject to the interest provisions of paragraph~,before filing the stipulation. If all payments
are made, plaintiffs counsel will return the stipulation to defense counsel for destruction.
'~7- Within 5 days of this agreement, Amy G. Langerman and Mary Jo O'Neill will provide
defendant's counsel with a break down of the total settlement, with the a.rnounts to be paid to each individual plaintiff, for attorneys fees and for costs. Each payment identified in paragraph one will be prorated per charging party.
'1.~. Defendants will issue 1099's based on the distribution provided..
5 jf. Each payee will be responsible for their share of any tax liability.
tf.;.r: The federal claims will be resolved by consent decree, a copy of which has previously been
provided. The federal court will retain jurisdiction of the case until final payment and the expiration of the consent decree.
1"£. The Clayton lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their own fees and
costs, by way of a pleading prepared by defense counsel. Dismissal will not occur until after the final payment is received. The parties will ask the court to keep the case on the inactive calender until dismissal.
- - - ---_._---~_._~-~-_.

%.;:( With respect to charging parties Battle, Clayton, Denman, Hamilton, Hughes, Mack and
Kaufman, there will be a separate settlement release and agreement, prepared by counsel for charging parties, signed which includes mutual release language, mutual non disparagement language and an agreement by defendants that any requests for references made to defendants will be answered by providing only each charging parties' date of hire, date oftermination, title and last salary. ~)t. All payments will be by check or draft. All late payments will bear interest at e te 0 retroactive to April 25, 2000, until paid.
Dated this 251h day of April, 2000.
gSl~~~en1..ag:~ement is approved and agreed to by:

.I

1

EXHIBITB

2

3

[ACMR LETTERHEAD]

4 [DATE]
5

6

Dear

_

7 As you are aware, a lawsuit was filed against DMS alleging race
8 discriminatIon, intersectional race/sex discrimination, J?regnancy discnmination, associational discrimination, discrimination on the basIs of natlOnal origin, and
9 retaliation against employees of the company.

10

Please accept our sincere ap-ology, on behalf ofDMS and its management for

any language or conduct you founo offensive or objectionable during your

11 employment with DMS. Please accept my commitment that the company will take

whatever steps are necessary to ensure that current and future DMS employees work

12 in an environment free of discrimination and harassment.

13

Sincerely,

14

15 Steve Singer
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

--~-------------'----------~-~-------------------'-- - ~ -

EXHIBIT C

2 NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF DMS
3 This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into between DMS and
4 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

5 It is unlawful under federal law Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and state law to
discriminate against an employee on the basis of race discrimination, intersectional 6 race/sex discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, associational discrimination, or
national origin discrimination. It is also unlawful to retaliate against any person 7 because the person protested discriminatory practices or contactea the EEOC. .

8 DMS shall not discriminate against any employee on the basis ofrace discrimination, intersectional race/sex discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, associational
9 discrimination, or national origin discrimination, and shall not retaliate against any employee.
10
If you believe you have been discriminated against by DMS, you have the right to 11 seek assistance from:

12

(1) EEOC, 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix,

Arizona 85012, (602) 640-5000; or

13 (2) Arizona Civil Rights Division (ACRD) of the Attorney

14

General's Office, 1275 W. Washmgton, Phoenix, Arizona,

85007, (602) 255-5263.

15

or have the right to file a charge with the EEOC or ACRD if you believe you are

16 being discrimmated against.

17 No Retaliation Clause. No action may be taken against you by any supervisory or

management official of DMS for (1) opposing discriminatory practices made

18 unlawful by federal law, (2) filing a charge or assisting or participatmg in the filing

19

of a charge proceeding

obrfoduisgchrtimunindaetrioTni,tloerv(3n).

assisting Should

or participatmg in an investigation or any such retaltatory_actions be taken

against you, you should immediately contact the EEOC or the ACRD and the address

20 or telephone numbers listed above.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 </s> .'

FILED RECEIVED

LODGED COPY

1 The Langerman Law Offices

350 East Virginia Avenue

2

Suite 100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-1216

3

(602) 240-5525

NOV 2 6 1999
CLERK U S DISTRICT COURT DI8T " OF ARIZONA
Bl::===-_ _-.-1- DEPUTY

4 AMY G. LANGERMAN! #009174

Attorneys for Applicants/Intervenors 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

8 COMMISSION!

NO. CV 99-1766 PHX SMM

9

Plaintiff!

10
REGINA BATTLE; AUDRIA CLAYTON; 11 KATHY DENMAN; DENISE HAMILTON;
JASON HUGHES; and TEVIS MACK, 12
Applicants/Intervenors, 13
v. 14
DIRECT MARKETING SERVICES! INC.! 15 an Arizona Corporation; ACMR
ENTERPRISES, INC., a foreign 16 corporation; UNIVERSAL
TELESERVICES NETWORK CORP.! a 17 foreign corporation; UNIVERSAL
TELESERVICES ARIZONA CORP.! an 18 Arizona corporation; CSG, INC.,

APPLICANTS/INTERVENORS COMPLAINT

19

Defendants.

20

21

22
Applicants/Intervenors, by and through counsel undersigned! 23
state and allege as follows:
24
INTRODUCTION 25
1. The action arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights 26
Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to provide

1 appropriate relief to Regina Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman,

2 Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, and Tevis Mack who were subject to

3 unlawful discriminatory practices. Applicants/intervenors allege that

4 the defendants discriminated against them on the basis of their race,

5 African American; their association with African Americans; and their

6 sex, African American women. In addition, applicants/intervenors were

7 retaliated against for opposing discriminatory practices.

8

JURISDICTION

9

2. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to

10 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized

11 and instituted pursuant to Section 706(£) (1) and (3) of Title VII of

12 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (1) and

13 (3) (IITitle VIm) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

14 U.S.C. § 1981a.

15

3. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were

16 committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court

17 for the District of Arizona.

18

PARTIES

19

4. Regina Battle resides in Phoenix, Arizona and is an

20 African American female.

21

5. Audria Clayton resides in Glendale, Arizona and is an

22 African American female.

23

6. Kathy Denman resides in Avondale, Arizona and is an

24 African American female.

25

7. Denise Hamilton resides in Phoenix, Arizona and is an

26 African American female.

2

8. Jason Hughes resides in Phoenix, Arizona and is an

2 African American male.

3

9. Tevis Mack resides in Phoenix, Arizona and is an African

4 American male.

5

10. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times,

6 Defendant, Direct Marketing Services, Inc., an Arizona corporation;

7 ACMR Enterprises, Inc., a foreign corporation; Universal Teleservices

8 Arizona Corp., a foreign corporation; Universal Teleservices Network

9 Corp., a foreign corporation; and CSG, Inc. ("Defendants or Employers ll )

10 have been doing business in the state of Arizona and have had at least

11 fifteen (15) employees.

12

11. Upon information and belief, ACMR Enterprises, Inc.,

13 Universal Teleservices Arizona Corp.; Universal Teleservices Network

14 Corp.; and CSG, Inc. are holding companies, parent companies and/or

15 successors, directly or indirectly, of Direct Market ing Services, Inc.,

16 and are independently or vicariously liable for the acts set forth in

17 this complaint.

18

12. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been

19 employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning

20 of Sections 701(b), (9) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b),

21 (g) and (h).

22

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

23

13. More than thirty days prior to the institution of the

24 lawsuit by the EEOC on September 30, 1999, Regina Battle, Audria

25 Clayton, Kathy Denman, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, and Tevis Mack

26 filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by

3

_ _ - - - - - - _ . _ - - - - - - - - - _ . _ - - _ ..

._--------------,

Defendant Employers. All conditions precedent to the institution of

2 this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

3

14. Since at least August of 1995, Defendant Employers have

4 engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Scottsdale, Arizona

5 and Peoria, Arizona facilities, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title

6 VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by racially discriminating against Regina

7 Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes,

8 and Tevis Mack. These violations include:

9

1. Race discrimination in wages, failure to promote,

10

demotion and discharge

11

2. Racial harassment and a racially hostile work

12

environment, and;

13

3. Discriminatory terms and conditions of employment

14

based on race.

15

15. Since at least August of 1995, Defendant Employers have

16 engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Scottsdale, Arizona

17 and Peoria, Arizona facilities, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title

18 VIr, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (a) by intersectional racial and sexual

19 discrimination against Regina Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman and

20 Denise Hamilton. These violations includes:

21

1. Lower wages;

22

2. Failure to promote;

23

3. Discrimination; and;

24

4. Discharge.

25

16. Since at least August of 1995, Defendant Employers have

26 engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Scottsdale, Arizona

4

1 and Peoria, Arizona facilities in violation of Section 704(a) of Title

2 VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by retaliating against Kathy Denman and

3 Jason Hughes for opposing discriminatory practices.

4

17. Since at least August of 1995, Defendant Employers have

5 engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Scottsdale, Arizona

6 and Peoria, Arizona facilities, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title

7 VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by discriminating against Denise Hamilton

8 on the basis of her sex - female and her pregnancy.

9

18. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs

10 14 - 17 above has been to deprive Regina Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy

11 Denman, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, and Tevis Mack of equal

12 employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as

13 employees, because of their race and/or sex.

14

19. The unlawful employment practices complained of in

15 paragraphs 14 - 17 above were and are intentional.

16

20. The unlawful employment practices complained of in

17 paragraphs 14 - 17 above were and are done with malice or with reckless

18 indifference to the federally protected rights of Regina Battle, Audria

19 Clayton, Kathy Denman, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, and Tevis Mack.

20

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

21

WHEREFORE, applicants/intervenors respectfully request that

22 this Court:

23

1. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Regina Battle,

24 Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, and Tevis

25 Mack by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in

26 amounts to be determined' at trial, and other affirmative relief

5

necessary to eradicate the effects. of their unlawful employment

2 practices, including, but not limited to, reinstatement, front pay,

3 and/or promotion of Regina Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman,

4 Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, and Tevis Mack.

S

2. Order Defendant Employers to make whole, Regina Battle,

6 Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, and Tevis

7 Mack by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses

8 resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in

9 paragraphs 14 - 17 above in an amount to be determined at trial.

10

3. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Regina Battle,

11 Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, and Tevis

12 Mack by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses

13 resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 14 -

14 17 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental

IS anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be

16 determined at trial.

17

4. Order Defendant Employers to pay Regina Battle, Audria

18 Clayton, Kathy Denman, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, and Tevis Mack

19 punitive damages for Defendant Employers' malicious and reckless

20 conduct d!,=scribed in paragraphs 14 17 above, in amounts to be

21 determined at trial.

22

5. Order Defendant Employers to pay Regina Battle, Audria

23 Clayton, Kathy Denman, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, and Tevis Mack

24 their attorneys fees and costs incurred in connection with this action,

25 in amounts to be determined following trial.

26

6

.:-.

6. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary

2 and proper.

3

JURy TRIAL DEMAND

4

Applicants/intervenors request a jury trial on all questions

5 of fact raised by their complaint.

6

Respectfully submitted this ~ day of November, 1999.

7

8

9

BYA~M~Y:-I:;ANG~i!AN--=-=-~1f--

10

350 East vi ginia, St 100

Phoenix, Auizona 8500

11

Attorneys 'ror Applicants/

Intervenors

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

- - - - - ------------_._-- ------------,

":"-"",,,,,"

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I certify that on thisJ;8ed day of November, 1999, copies of

the foregoing ApplicantsjIntervenors Complaint were mailed first class,

3 postage prepaid, to:

4

Gary J. Jaburg

5

Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.

3200 North Central Avenue

6

20 th Floor

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2440

7

Attorneys for defendants DMS Direct

Marketing Services, Inc. and

8

ACMR Enterprises, Inc.

9

L. Eric Dowell, Esq.

Bryan Cave, LLP

10

Two North Central Avenue

Suite 2200

11

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406

Attorneys for defendant Universal

12

Teleservices Arizona Corp.

13

Richard R. Trujillo

Mary Jo O'Neill

14

Sally C. Shanley

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

15

Phoenix District Office

3300 North Central Avenue

16

Suite 690

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

17

Plaintiff

18

19

!l4 , I:- ) , ;' (/ )~t{ /)

k< )J~ ., .

•

!

•

Adrienne KrWilson

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

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

Page 1 of 6

STD, TERMED
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:99-cv-01766-SMM

EEOC v. Direct Marketing Svc, et al Assigned to: Judge Stephen M McNamee Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/30/1999 Date Terminated: 05/05/2000 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Mary Joleen O'Neill EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, Az 85012-1848 602-640-5044 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard R Trujillo Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally Clifford Shanley EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848 602-640-5007 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: sally.shanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?326479852345952-L_353_0-1

4/4/2007

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

Page 2 of 6

DMS Direct Marketing Services, Inc. an Arizona Corporation also known as Direct Marketing Services, Inc.
Defendant ACMR Enterprises Inc a foreign corporation

represented by Gary Joseph Jaburg Jaburg & Wilk PC Great American Tower 3200 N Central Ave Ste 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-248-1020 Fax: 602-248-0522 Email: gjj@jaburgwilk.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M Jellison Schleier Law Offices PC 3101 N Central Ave Ste 1090 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-277-0157 Fax: 602-230-9250 Email: jjellison@sjslaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tod F Schleier Schleier Jellison & Schleier 3101 N Central Ave Ste 1090 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-277-0157 Fax: 602-230-9250 Email: tschleier@azworklaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gary Joseph Jaburg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James M Jellison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tod F Schleier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?326479852345952-L_353_0-1

4/4/2007

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report Defendant Universal Teleservices Network Corporation a foreign corporation Defendant Universal Teleservices Arizona Corporation an Arizona corporation
Defendant CSG Inc an Arizona corporation Intervenor Plaintiff Regina Battle

Page 3 of 6
represented by James M Jellison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leigh Eric Dowell Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC 2415 E Camelback Rd Ste 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602-778-3700 Fax: 602-778-3700 Email: eric.dowell@ogletreedeakins.com TERMINATED: 12/20/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa D Forst Bryan Cave LLP 2 N Central Ave Ste 2200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4406 (602)364-7000 TERMINATED: 12/20/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tod F Schleier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy G Langerman Law Offices of Raymond J Slomski PC 2929 N Central Ave #1750

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?326479852345952-L_353_0-1

4/4/2007

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

Page 4 of 6

Intervenor Plaintiff Audria Clayton
Intervenor Plaintiff Kathy Denman
Intervenor Plaintiff Denise Hamilton
Intervenor Plaintiff Jason Hughes
Intervenor Plaintiff Tevis Mack

Phoenix, AZ 85012-2727 (602)230-8777 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy G Langerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy G Langerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy G Langerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy G Langerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy G Langerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/30/1999 10/26/1999
10/27/1999
10/28/1999
11/04/1999

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT FILED (SAT) (Entered: 10/04/1999)

2 RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED of summons/complaint upon dft CSG Inc on 10/25/99 (former emp) (Entered: 10/26/1999)

3 RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED of summons/complaint upon dft ACMR Enterprises Inc on 10/21/99 (former emp) (Entered: 10/28/1999)

4 RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED of summons/complaint upon dft Direct Marketing Svc on 10/27/99 (former emp) (Entered: 10/28/1999)

5 MOTION to intervene as plas by Regina Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, Tevis Mack [5-1] (former

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?326479852345952-L_353_0-1

4/4/2007

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

Page 5 of 6

11/08/1999 11/15/1999 11/17/1999 11/24/1999
11/26/1999 12/09/1999 12/13/1999 12/13/1999 12/15/1999
12/16/1999 12/16/1999 12/20/1999

emp) (Entered: 11/05/1999)
6 ORDER by Judge Stephen M. McNamee granting motion to intervene as plas by Regina Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, Tevis Mack [5-1] (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 11/08/1999)
7 STIPULATION for extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to complaint by pla EEOC, dfts ACMR Enterprises Inc, Universal Telesvc AZ, and Direct Marketing Svc [7-1] (former emp) (Entered: 11/17/1999)
8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by pla EEOC; jury demand [1-1] (Direct Marketing Services, t/n DMS Direct Marketing Services Inc) (former emp) (Entered: 11/18/1999)
9 ORDER by Judge Stephen M. McNamee granting stipulation for extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to complaint by pla EEOC, dfts ACMR Enterprises Inc, Universal Telesvc AZ, and Direct Marketing Svc [7-1] to 12/16/99 to answer complaint [1-1] (cc: all counsel) (former emp) (Entered: 11/24/1999)
10 COMPLAINT FILED; jury demand by Applicants/Intervenors Regina Battle, Audria Clayton, Kathy Denman, Denise Hamilton, Jason Hughes, Tevis Mack (former emp) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
11 MOTION to quash subpoena (issued to CSG, Inc) by pla [11-1] (former emp) (Entered: 12/10/1999)
12 ORDER by Judge Stephen M. McNamee granting motion to quash subpoena (issued to CSG, Inc) by pla [11-1] (cc: all counsel) (former emp) (Entered: 12/13/1999)
13 Notice of ERRATA by pla to motion to quash [11-1] (former emp) (Entered: 12/15/1999)
14 AMENDED ORDER by Judge Stephen M. McNamee re: order [12-1], re: motion to quash subpoena (issued to CSG, Inc) by pla [11-1]; ORDERED quashing summons (cc: all counsel) (Note: motion inadvertently states "subpoena" but it is a summons) (former emp) (Entered: 12/15/1999)
15 Application/Consent (MOTION) to substitute counsel (Tod F Schleier in place of Teresa D Forst & L Eric Dowell of Bryan Cave) by dft Universal Telesvc AZ [15-1] (former emp) (Entered: 12/18/1999)
16 ANSWER to 1st amended complaint by DMS Direct Marketing, ACMR Enterprises Inc, Universal Telesvc AZ (former emp) (Entered: 12/18/1999)
17 ORDER by Judge Stephen M. McNamee granting motion to substitute counsel (Tod F Schleier in place of Teresa D Forst & L Eric Dowell of Bryan Cave) by dft Universal Telesvc AZ [15-1] (terming attorneys Leigh Eric Dowell, Teresa D Forst for Universal Telesvc and substituting attorneys Tod F Schleier, James M Jellison) (cc: all counsel) (former

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?326479852345952-L_353_0-1

4/4/2007

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

Page 6 of 6

01/05/2000 01/12/2000 01/24/2000 05/05/2000

emp) (Entered: 12/20/1999)
18 Standard Civil Track Initial Order by Judge Stephen M. McNamee (cc: all counsel) re: order [18-1] (former emp) (Entered: 01/05/2000)
19 NOTICE by pla EEOC re: ptys are ready for the setting preliminary scheduling conference. (former emp) (Entered: 01/13/2000)
20 ORDER by Judge Stephen M. McNamee ; prel scheduling conf set for 4:00 5/22/00 (cc: all counsel) (former emp) (Entered: 01/24/2000)
21 CONSENT JUDGMENT: by Judge Stephen M. McNamee This decree resolves all claims of the Commission, those it represents and all putative class members against dfts, including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs arising out of the issues in this lawsuit; Judgment is entered in favor of the Commission and against dfts in the amount of $700,000. terminating case (cc: all counsel) (former emp) (Entered: 05/05/2000)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

04/03/2007 23:24:37

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:99-cv-01766SMM

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

0.24

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?326479852345952-L_353_0-1

4/4/2007

 </s> EEOC REACHES $700,000 SETTLEMENT WITH DIRECT MARKE...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/5-5-00.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 5, 2000

CONTACT: Richard R. Trujillo, Regional Attorney (602) 640-5066 Mary Jo O'Neill, Supv. Trial Attorney (602) 640-5044 Susan Grace, Program Analyst (602) 640-5023 TTY (602) 640-5072

EEOC REACHES $700,000 SETTLEMENT WITH DIRECT MARKETING SERVICES

Agency's Largest Monetary Settlement for Race Discrimination in State of Arizona
PHOENIX - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that several African American former employees of Direct Marketing Services' Peoria, Ariz., facility will receive a total of $700,000 as part of the terms of a consent decree settling charges of racial harassment and other race-based discrimination issues filed against the company. The decree, the largest monetary settlement of a race discrimination case in the history of the agency's Phoenix office, was also approved today by federal district court Judge Stephen M. McNamee.
EEOC Chairwoman Ida L. Castro said that each of the eleven individuals who suffered the discrimination will receive a letter of apology from the company. "This might help bring closure to the humiliation they suffered," she said, "but, from the perspective of the EEOC, it merely highlights the unfortunate fact that the American workplace is far from turning the corner on race bias. The EEOC will continue to root out racial harassment and other forms of illegal discrimination through vigorous enforcement of the laws prohibiting such practices."
The consent decree settles a lawsuit filed by the EEOC after an investigation concluded that the former employees of the telemarketing firm were racially harassed, paid unequal wages, and denied promotions at the company. Efforts by the EEOC to conciliate the charges prior to filing suit were unsuccessful.
Under the decree, which will be enforced over the next two years, Direct Marketing Services will provide mandatory training on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to all employees at its facilities. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The decree further enjoins the company from engaging in race, sex and national origin discrimination and from retaliating against anyone who opposes discrimination.
The company also has been ordered to maintain all relevant records, post a notice about its anti-discrimination policies, and to institute policies, practices, and procedures that ensure a discrimination-free working environment. One such procedure will be to evaluate supervisors, managers and human resource personnel on their performance in responding to complaints of discrimination.
Charles D. Burtner, head of EEOC's Phoenix office, credits the state chapter of the NAACP with bringing the civil rights group's concerns about area telemarketing businesses to the attention of the EEOC. "This case is an example of the role that advocacy organizations play in the Commission's efforts to eliminate job discrimination," said Burtner.
EEOC General Counsel C. Gregory Stewart said, "The EEOC will fight to stop race discrimination -- in all of its forms." He added: "In this case there was ugly racial harassment, race segregated facilities. . . No worker should have to tolerate this discriminatory treatment in order to support themselves and their families."
Commenting on the potential effect of the settlement on area businesses, EEOC Regional Attorney Richard R. Trujillo said, "For an industry that relies on telephonic communication it is particularly important to remember that Title VII protects all workers in the workplace from race discrimination. As this case proves, it can be costly to employers who don't provide these protections."
In addition to enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal government; 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.

This page was last modified on May 5, 2000.

Return to Home Page

1 of 1

6/8/2007 9:24 AM


[CONTENT] September 1999 | the Phoenix District Office | EEOC | DMS Direct Marketing Services, Inc. | Direct Marketing Services | the U.S. District Court | Arizona ||| EEOC | eleven | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act | 1964 ||| Black ||| Six | November 1999 ||| May 2000 ||| 700,000 |||  [SUMMARY] In September 1999, the Phoenix District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against DMS Direct Marketing Services, Inc., aka Direct Marketing Services, Inc., and related businesses in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  We do not have a copy of the complaint; however, it appears from an EEOC press release that the complaint alleged that the defendant discriminated against eleven individuals on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Specifically, the defendant subjected the individuals to racial harassment, paid them unequal wages, and denied them promotions because of their race, Black.  Six charging parties intervened in the suit in November 1999.  After some discovery, the parties settled in May 2000 through a consent decree.  

The consent decree contained non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses and required the defendant to: provide Title VII training for all its employees, maintain all relevant documents, post an anti-discrimination notice, evaluate supervisory and human resource personnel on their response to complaints of discrimination, and pay $700,000. Additionally the defendant was required to apologize to each charging party and expunge their employment records.

