IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, City Crescent Building, 3rdFloor 10 South Howard Street Baltimore, MD 21201
Plaintiff,
v.
EMS INNOVATIONS, INC.,
4513 Mountain Road, Suite 4 Pasadena, Maryland 21122
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.

)

)

)

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL

)

DEMAND

) )

)

)

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of

the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to

provide appropriate reliefto Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper, Charging Party Paula Bathras, Kelli

Brown, Tanya Smith, and other presently unidentified female employees who were adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greaterparticularity in paragraphs 7-14, below, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") alleges that the Defendant EMS Innovations, Inc. has engaged in a continuous course of sexual harassment and sex discrimination

that has persisted since at least August 2004. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuantto 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343

and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(£)(1) and (3) of Title VII

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

Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 US.C. § 1981a. 2. The employmentpractices allegedto be unlawful were and are now being committed

within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern

Division, and other jurisdictions.

PARTIES

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

the Agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and

enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and

(3) of Title VII, 42 US.C. § 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant EMS Innovations, Inc., a Delaware corporation, has

continuously been doing business in the State of Maryland, as well as other jurisdictions, and has

continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an

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

US.C. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6.

More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Elizabeth Cooper and

Paula Bathras filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII

by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7.

Since at least August 2004, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices

at its Pasadena, Maryland facility and at other locations in violation of Section 703(a)(1) and (a)(2)

2

of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(I) and (a)(2).

8.

Beginning on or about November 3, 2004, and persisting until on or about

November 15, 2004, Defendant, acting through its President, owner and alter ego Joseph G. Ferko,

III, subjected Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper to a continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII. Such harassment created a hostile

work environment on the basis of sex and culminatedin tangibleemployment action. Defendant had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful harassment and failed to take reasonable corrective

action or action reasonably calculated to prevent the harassment. 9. On or about November 15, 2004, Defendant constructively discharged Charging

Party Elizabeth Cooper because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course

of Ms. Cooper's employment, Defendant deliberately created working conditions that Ms. Cooper

reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled her to resign. 10. Beginning on or aboutAugust 9, 2004, andpersisting until on or aboutNovember 17,

2004, Defendant, acting through its President, owner and alter ego Joseph G. Ferko, III, subjected

Charging Party Paula Bathras to a continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII. Such harassment created a hostile work

environment on the basis of sex and culminated in tangible employment action. Defendant had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful harassment and failed to take reasonable corrective

action or action reasonably calculated to prevent the harassment. 11. On or about November 17,2004, Defendant constructively discharged Charging

Party Paula Bathras because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of

Ms. Bathras's employment, Defendant deliberately created working conditions that Ms. Bathras

3

reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled her to resign. 12. Beginning on or about August 2004, and persisting until on or about January 2005,
Defendant, acting through its President, owner and alter ego Joseph G. Ferko, III, subjected Kelli Brown to a continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII. Such harassment created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex and culminated in her discharge, a tangible employment action. Defendant had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful harassment and failed to take reasonable corrective action or action reasonably calculated to prevent the harassment.
13. Beginning on or aboutDecember 2004, andpersisting until on or aboutAugust 2005, Defendant, acting through its President, owner and alter ego Joseph G. Ferko, III, subjected Tanya Smith to a continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII. Such harassment created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex and culminated in her forcedreassignment,reduction ofpay, and discharge, all tangible employment actions. Defendant had actual and constructive notice ofthe unlawful harassment and failed to take reasonable corrective action or action reasonably calculated to prevent the harassment.
14. Since at least August 2004, Defendant, acting through its President, owner and alter ego Joseph G. Ferko, III,has subjected a class of presentlyunidentified aggrievedfemale employees to a continuing, on-going course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of their sex, female, in violation of Title VII. Such harassment created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex and culminated in tangible employment actions. Defendant had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful harassment and failed to take reasonable corrective action or action reasonably calculated to prevent the harassment.
4

15. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7-14, above, has been to deprive Charging PartyElizabeth Cooper,ChargingPartyPaulaBathras, Kelli Brown, Tanya Smith, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated female employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex.
16. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-14 above, are part of a continuing course of sex discriminationperpetrated againstfemale employeesby Defendant that has persisted since at least August 2004.
17. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-14, above, were and are intentional.
18. The unlawful employmentpractices complained of in paragraphs 7-14, above, were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federallyprotected rights of Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper, Charging Party Paula Bathras, Kelli Brown, Tanya Smith, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated female employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for female persons, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
5

.
C. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper, Charging Party Paula Bathras,Kelli Brown, TanyaSmith,andotherpresentlyunidentified, similarly-situatedfemale employees by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement and front pay in lieu thereof.
D. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper, Charging Party Paula Bathras,KelliBrown, Tanya Smith, and otherpresentlyunidentified, similarly-situatedfemale employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7-14, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper, Charging Party Paula Bathras,Kelli Brown, Tanya Smith, and otherpresentlyunidentified, similarly-situatedfemale employees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7-14, above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,mental anguish, loss of enjoymentoflife, and other non-pecuniarylosses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant to pay Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper, Charging Party Paula Bathras, Kelli Brown, Tanya Smith, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated female employees punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7-14, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
6

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
./ tjlp-\.-
JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR Regional Attorney EEOC-Philadelphia District Office (including Baltimore Field Office) City Crescent Building, 3rdFloor 10 S. Howard St. Baltimore, MD 21201 Office #: (215) 440-2666 Facsimile #: (215) 440-2600
TRACY H$j;ON SPICER Supervisoryblrial Attorney EEOC-Baltimore Field Office City Crescent Building, 3rdFloor 10 South Howard Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Telephone number: (410) 962-4623 Facsimile number: (410) 962-4270/2817
7

/ ~. /p/ - -
R6NALD L. PHILLIPS Senior Trial Attorney EEOC-BaItimoreField Office City Crescent Building, 3rdFloor 10 South Howard Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Office #: (410) 962-4628 Facsimile #: (410) 962-4270/2817
8

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

*

Plaintiff, v.
EMS INNOVATIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

* Civil Action No. RDB 06-1320
*
*
*

* ************

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action arises from a Complaint filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (the “EEOC”) against Defendant EMS Innovations, Inc. (“EMS”). The Complaint

alleges that EMS violated certain provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”). Pending

before this Court is EMS’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. EMS contends that the Complaint fails to state a claim for two reasons: (1)

EMS is not a covered “employer” for purposes of Title VII; and (2) the Complaint fails to

specify sufficient facts to support the asserted causes of action. EMS asserts matters outside the

pleadings in making these contentions. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The

parties’ submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.

Md. 2004). For the reasons stated below, EMS’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and the EEOC

is granted leave to file an amended complaint.

STANDARD OF REVIEW I. Motion to Dismiss.
Defendant seeks to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “The purpose of Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint” and not to “resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243-44 (4th Cir. 1999)). The “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim.” Coney v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Rather, Rule 8(a)(2) requires only a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Migdal v. Rowe PriceFleming Int’l Inc., 248 F.3d 321, 325-26 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002) (stating that a complaint need only satisfy the “simplified pleading standard” of Rule 8(a)). Therefore, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “should only be granted if, after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.” Migdal v. Rowe Price-Fleming Int’l Inc., 248 F.3d 321, 325 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Venkatraman v. REI Sys., Inc., 417 F.3d 418, 420 (4th Cir. 2005). II. Summary Judgement.
As EMS asserts matters outside the pleadings, Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that this Court may treat the motion as one for summary judgment. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
-2-

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 a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (emphasis added). In Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), the Supreme Court explained that only “facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law” are material. Id. at 248. Moreover, a dispute over a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. The court further explained that, in considering a motion for summary judgment, a judge’s function is limited to determining whether sufficient evidence supporting a claimed factual dispute exists to warrant submission of the matter to a jury for resolution at trial. Id. at 249. In that context, a court must consider the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
“Once the movant has established the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, the opposing party has an obligation to present some type of evidence to the court demonstrating the existence of an issue of fact.” Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. Beverley, 404 F.3d 243, 246-47 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Pine Ridge Coal Co. v. Local 8377, UMW, 187 F.3d 415, 422 (4th Cir. 1999)). Thus, Rule 56 mandates summary judgment against a party “who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the evidence presented by the nonmoving party is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment must be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50. Similarly, the existence of a mere “scintilla” of evidence in support of the nonmoving party’s case is insufficient to preclude an order granting summary judgment. Id. at 252.
-3-

DISCUSSION I. Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Although not organized by counts, the Complaint alleges that EMS’s President and owner, Joseph G. Ferko, III (“Ferko”), subjected at least six employees to sexual harassment in violation of Title VII. For example, the Complaint asserts that Ferko subjected Elizabeth Cooper and Paula Bathras “to a continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment” and that these employees were “constructively discharged” because of their sex. (Compl. ¶¶ 8-11.) The EEOC alleges that Ferko subjected Kelli Brown and Tanya Smith “to a continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of [their] sex . . . ” (Id. at ¶¶ 12-13.) The Complaint also alleges that Ferko has “subjected a class of presently unidentified aggrieved female employees to a continuing, on-going course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of their sex, female, in violation of Title VII.” (Id. at ¶ 14.) The EEOC contends that the unlawful employment practices described above “are part of a continuing course of sex discrimination.” (Id. at ¶ 16.) Finally, the EEOC requests a permanent injunction enjoining EMS from engaging in sexual harassment and seeks compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. (Id. at ¶¶ A-F.) II. “Employer” under Title VII.
It is well-established that Title VII liability only attaches to “employers.” An “employer” is “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). Whether an entity employs a sufficient number of employees for Title VII purposes is an issue that should be evaluated under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
-4-

Rules of Civil Procedure, not Rule 12(b)(1). See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, ___, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 1245 (2006). (“[W]e hold that the threshold number of employees for application of Title VII is an element of a plaintiff’s claim for relief, not a jurisdictional issue.”) Accordingly, this Court considers EMS’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
EMS contends that it never employed fifteen or more employees and therefore is not an “employer” under Title VII. In response, the EEOC argues that EMS’s argument relies on miscategorizing its employees as “owners,” “independent contractors,” or “high school students.” For reasons explained below, this factual dispute cannot be resolved at this early stage in the litigation.
As a preliminary matter, EMS presents matters outside the pleadings—e.g., personnel records—in support of its claim that it is not an “employer” under Title VII. As a result, this Court must convert EMS’s motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment under Rule 56. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (“[M]atters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the Court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56 . . . .”). In light of the fact that discovery has not commenced in this case, this Court notes the general rule that “summary judgment must be refused where the nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition.” Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214, 244 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 n.5 (1986)). Under Rule 56(f), moreover, this court has discretionary authority to deny a motion for summary judgment in response to the nonmoving party’s request for discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) (“[T]he court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit . . . discovery to be had . . . .”).
-5-

In this case, additional discovery is needed to resolve whether EMS is an employer within the ambit of Title VII. First, the primary documents relied upon by EMS—i.e., the business records attached to the Motion to Dismiss— are unauthenticated. See Orsi v. Kirkwood, 999 F.2d 86, 92 (4th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted) ("It is well established that unsworn, unauthenticated documents cannot be considered on a motion for summary judgment."). Second, at least one of those documents appears inconsistent with EMS’s contention that its workforce was at all times less than 15 employees. Specifically, the staffing report submitted by EMS for calender year 2005 appears to list at least 15 part or full-time employees. (See Def. Mot. to Dis., unnumbered exhibit.) In its reply papers, moreover, EMS suggests that these records may contain errors. (See Def. Reply p. 7 (“Any errors made were based on a response to vague subpoena request[s] by the EEOC.”).) Finally, the EEOC submits an affidavit filed under Rule 56(f) specifying the need for discovery in this matter. (See Pl. Mem. in Opp. to Mot. to Dis., Attachment 1, pp. 1-2.) Specifically, the EEOC intends to gather information on this issue by requesting interrogatories, document production, and deposing of various personnel who worked at EMS facilities.1 (See Pl. Mem. in Opp. to Mot. to Dis., Attachment 1, pp. 1.)

1

This Court notes that EMS attached a number of affidavits to its reply brief. First,

the EEOC has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to challenge the statements made in

these affidavits. Cf. Jordan v. Washington Mut. Bank, 211 F. Supp. 2d 670, 673 (D. Md. 2002)

(“Even if the Court were to conclude that it should at this early stage of the case consider

‘matters outside the pleading,’ the Court would be required to give the parties a ‘reasonable

opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.’”) (citing Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)). Second, at least some of the affidavits submitted by EMS categorize its workers

as “employees,” “independent contractors,” etc. in conclusory fashion. Cf. Guinness PLC v.

Ward, 955 F.2d 875, 901 (4th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he mere placement of . . . conclusory allegations

and speculative assertions into affidavits or declaration without further legitimate support clearly

does not suffice” to overcome summary judgment.).

-6-

After considering the parties’ papers, this Court is satisfied that discovery is needed to determine whether EMS is an “employer” for purposes of Title VII. III. Adequacy of Complaint.
EMS asserts that the Complaint is deficient because it fails to specify sufficient facts in support of its allegations. The EEOC responds that its Complaint demonstrates genuine issues of material fact and satisfies the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff’s complaint in an employment discrimination suit need not allege facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. at 510. In Bass v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761 (4th Cir. 2003), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit interpreted Swierkierwicz in the context of a hostile work environment claim as follows:
[A] plaintiff is not charged with forecasting evidence sufficient to prove an elem ent of her claim . Our circuit has not, however, interpreted Skierkiewicz as rem oving the burden of a plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of her claim. . . . While a plaintiff is not charged with pleading facts sufficient to prove her case, as an evidentiary matter, in her complaint, a plaintiff is required to allege facts that support a claim for relief. Bass, 324 F.3d at 765 (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 213 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he Supreme Court’s holding in Skierkiewicz v. Sorema did not alter the basic pleading requirement that a plaintiff set forth facts sufficient to allege each element of his claim.”) (internal citation omitted). In this case, the Complaint contains almost no facts. For example, while noting that Elizabeth Cooper, Paula Bathras, Kelli Brown, and Tanya Smith were subjected to a “continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment,” the Complaint does not articulate any facts in
-7-

support of this contention. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10, 12, 13.) The EEOC has requested leave to file an amended complaint stating further facts in support of its claims. (See Pl. Mem. in Opp. to Mot. to Dis. p. 17.) Accordingly, this Court will grant the EEOC’s request for leave to file an amended complaint and instructs the EEOC to organize its amended complaint by counts and allege the relevant facts with sufficient particularity.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.2 A separate Order follows.

Dated: February 12, 2007

/s/ Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge

2

Defendant may submit another motion for summary judgment on its status as an

“employer” under Title VII after discovery has been taken.

-8-

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

*

Plaintiff, v.
EMS INNOVATIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

* Civil Action No. RDB 06-1320
*
*
*

* ************

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, IT IS this 12th day of

February, 2006, HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Motion to Dismiss (Paper No. 6) filed by Defendant EMS Innovations, Inc. is

DENIED;

2. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is granted leave to file an amended

complaint; and

3. The Clerk of the Court transmit copies of this Order and the accompanying Memorandum

Opinion to counsel for the parties.

/s/ Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

City Cresc ent Build ing , 3rd Floor

)

10 South Howard Street

)

Baltimore, MD 21201

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

EMS INNOVATIONS, INC.,

)

4513 Mountain Road, Suite 4

)

Pasadena, Maryland 21122

)

)

Defendant.

)

______________________________)

Case No. RDB-06-CV-1320
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper, Charging Party Paula Bathras, Kellie Brown, Tanya Smith, and other presently unidentified female employees who were adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraphs 7-29, below, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”) alleges that the Defendant EMS Innovations, Inc. has engaged in a continuous course of sexual harassment and sex discrimination that has persisted since at least August 2004.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, and other jurisdictions.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission” or “EEOC”), is the Agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant EMS Innovations, Inc., a Delaware corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State of Maryland, as well as other jurisdictions, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Elizabeth Cooper and Paula Bathras filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least August 2004, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment
2

practices at its Pasadena, Maryland facility and at other locations in violation of Section 703(a)(1) and (a)(2) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and (a)(2).
COUNT I 8. Beginning on or about November 3, 2004, and persisting until on or about November 15, 2004, Defendant, acting through its President, owner and alter ego Joseph G. Ferko, III, subjected Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper to a continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII. 9. The sexual harassment that Ferko perpetrated against Charging Party Cooper includes but is not limited to the following: he repeatedly made comments to her about his sex life, including sexual relationships with other women, how it was difficult to break up with one woman with whom he had maintained a relationship before his marriage because “it was the best sex of [his] life,” and how he was still interested in having affairs; he arranged for adjoining rooms at a hotel while on a trip to Alabama without her consent and for the apparent purpose of luring her into sexual relationship, which she changed upon learning of the arrangement; he made a number of thinly-veiled invitations to engage in sex while on a business trip by saying “What happens on this trip stays on this trip;” he repeatedly asked her about past relationships and boyfriends and whether she was dating anyone; he commented that 80% of married people have affairs; at a dinner while on a business trip, he asked her if she ordered oysters because of their alleged aphrodisiac properties and further commented, “Maybe that will get your engine started later on”; he invited her on a late night drive in Mobile, Alabama and tried to use alcoholic beverages to induce her into entering into a sexual relationship; he sat on her lap while they were alone at a warehouse and asked her for a back rub; he made affectional gestures such as offering
3

her his coat when she stated she was cold, and when she declined he forced it on her anyway; he made comments to her about alleged sexual behavior of female co-workers; and he stared at her body on several occasions. In addition, during her employment Charging Party Cooper became aware of Ferko’s sexual harassment of a number of her female coworkers, which she also found offensive. The foregoing sexual harassment created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex.
10. Defendant perpetrated the aforementioned sexual harassment through its alter ego, Joseph G. Ferko, III, and the sexual harassment culminated in tangible employment action, viz., Charging Party Cooper’s constructive discharge. Moreover, Defendant had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful harassment and failed to take any reasonable preventive or corrective action.
COUNT II 11. The Commission incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 8-10, above. 12. On or about November 15, 2004, Defendant constructively discharged Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of Ms. Cooper’s employment, Defendant deliberately created working conditions that Ms. Cooper reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled her to resign.
COUNT III 13. Beginning on or about August 9, 2004, and persisting until on or about November 17, 2004, Defendant, acting through its President, owner and alter ego Joseph G. Ferko, III, subjected Charging Party Paula Bathras to a continuing course of unwelcome
4

and offensive harassment because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII. 14. The sexual harassment that Ferko perpetrated against Charging Party Bathras
includes but is not limited to the following: he made repeated overt and explicit requests for her to engage in sex and an affectional relationship; he made frequent sexual jokes and tried to engage in sexual banter; he approached her from behind while at the office and pinched her stomach; he stared at her chest and purported to complement her about her cleavage and the size of her breasts; he made frequent offensive comments about women’s breasts; he repeatedly asked her to wear skirts more often to show off her legs; he purported to compliment her on her physical appearance; he falsely claimed she was planning a romantic trip for the two of them when she merely made business travel arrangements; without her consent, he arranged for adjacent rooms at a hotel during a business trip, and tried to arrange for adjoining rooms; he asked her to leave her husband because he “was looking out for [her]” and offered to fight her husband; he called her hotel room late at night and screamed that he wanted to “f**k [her] brains out;” he falsely accused her of being in love with him; he made a sexual comment about her buttocks while she was bending over to perform a work-related task; he put his arm around her during a cab ride and told the driver that he wanted her to give him (Ferko) a bath; he pounded on the wall separating their adjacent hotel rooms late at night and, the next morning, stated that he tried to call her to invite her and a female friend over to share some champagne with him; he made public comments while on a business trip such as, “People think we’re together” and “People think I’m her boyfriend,” expressed his displeasure to her whenever she told people they were not a couple and identified him as her boss, and publicly scorned her for not paying enough attention to him; he offered to purchase jewelry for her; in response to
5

Bathras rebuffing his advances, he shunned her and spread rumors about her alleged sexual behavior; he falsely accused her of planning to have sexual relationships with men while on a business trip; he spread sexual rumors about her female-co-workers, such as telling her that a female co-worker did not have a good relationship with that co-worker’s husband and that she was known to party and entertain other men on business trips; and when the same female co-worker stated she would be late due a medical appointment, he queried whether it was a gynecological appointment, and if it was, offered to conduct a gynecological exam in his office at EMS. In addition, during her employment Charging Party Bathras became aware of Ferko’s sexual harassment of a number of her female coworkers, which she also found offensive. The foregoing sexual harassment created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex.
15. Defendant perpetrated the aforementioned sexual harassment through its alter ego, Joseph G. Ferko, III, and the sexual harassment culminated in tangible employment action, viz., Charging Party Bathras’s constructive discharge. Moreover, Defendant had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful harassment and failed to take any reasonable preventive or corrective action.
COUNT IV 16. The Commission incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 13-15, above. 17. On or about November 17, 2004, Defendant constructively discharged Charging Party Paula Bathras because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of Ms. Bathras’s employment, Defendant deliberately created working conditions that Ms. Bathras reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled
6

her to resign. COUNT V
18. Beginning on or about August 2004, and persisting until on or about January 2005, Defendant, acting through its President, owner and alter ego Joseph G. Ferko, III, subjected Kellie Brown to a continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII.
19. The sexual harassment that Ferko perpetrated against Kellie Brown includes but is not limited to the following: he commented on her nipple on one occasion and then deliberately touched it; he attempted to touch her stomach and tickle her while in the workplace; he repeatedly made sexual comments, such as commenting that if he were younger and she were older, they could run away together; he made several comments to her about the alleged aphrodisiac properties of oysters; he yelled and screamed at her, while not treating male employees in a comparable manner; he forced her to perform grocery shopping for him; he stared at her body; he inappropriately complimented her on her manner of dress and made comments such as telling her that wearing red pump high heels with a certain dress would make her look “hot”; and he commented that Charging Party Bathras’s manner of dress and attractiveness at a sales meeting was the factor that secured an account for Defendant. In addition, during her employment Kellie Brown became aware of Ferko’s sexual harassment of a number of her female co-workers, which she also found offensive. The foregoing sexual harassment created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex.
20. Defendant perpetrated the aforementioned sexual harassment through its alter ego, Joseph G. Ferko, III, and the sexual harassment culminated in tangible
7

employment action, viz., Kellie Brown’s discharge. Moreover, Defendant had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful harassment and failed to take reasonable corrective action or action reasonably calculated to prevent the harassment.
COUNT VI 21. Beginning on or about December 2004, and persisting until on or about August 2005, Defendant, acting through its President, owner and alter ego Joseph G. Ferko, III, subjected Tanya Smith to a continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII. 22. The sexual harassment that Ferko perpetrated against Tanya Smith includes but is not limited to the following: he deliberately grabbed her breast; he made repeated sexual comments about Smith and others, such as saying he could not wait to get Smith and other women into a room alone with him; he spread rumors about Smith’s alleged sexual behavior and that of her female co-workers; she was informed by fellow female EMS employees that he had made sexual advances toward them, including unwelcome touching and advances; he was verbally abusive, such as telling Smith to “shut the f**k up,” while not being abusive to male employees ; he repeatedly stared at her body and watched her; he offered her alcoholic beverages in an attempt to induce her into a sexual relationship; and he openly made sexist comments such as, “Women are meant to be seen, not heard.” The foregoing sexual harassment created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex. 23. Defendant perpetrated the aforementioned sexual harassment through its alter ego, Joseph G. Ferko, III, and the sexual harassment culminated in tangible employment actions, viz., Tanya Smith’s constructive reassignment to outside sales (with resulting reduction of pay) on or about March 2005 and her discharge. Moreover,
8

Defendant had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful harassment and failed to take reasonable corrective action or action reasonably calculated to prevent the harassment.
COUNT VII 24. The Commission incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 8-23, above. 25. Since at least August 2004, Defendant, acting through its President, owner and alter ego Joseph G. Ferko, III, has subjected a class of presently unidentified aggrieved female employees to a continuing, on-going course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of their sex, female, in violation of Title VII. Such harassment includes but is not limited to unwanted touching, sexual comments and requests, and other conduct. Other female employees believed to have been subjected to such sexual harassment include but are not limited to Rita Lloyd, Sheri Robinson, and two presently unidentified female employees in Alabama. Such harassment created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex and culminated in tangible employment actions. Defendant had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful harassment and failed to take reasonable corrective action or action reasonably calculated to prevent the harassment. 26. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7-25, above, has been to deprive Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper, Charging Party Paula Bathras, Kellie Brown, Tanya Smith, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated female employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex. 27. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-25 above, are part of a continuing course of sex discrimination perpetrated against female employees
9

by Defendant that has persisted since at least August 2004. 28. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-25, above,
were and are intentional. 29. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-25, above,
were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper, Charging Party Paula Bathras, Kellie Brown, Tanya Smith, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated female employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for female persons, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper, Charging Party Paula Bathras, Kellie Brown, Tanya Smith, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated female employees by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement and front pay in lieu thereof. D. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper, Charging
10

Party Paula Bathras, Kellie Brown, Tanya Smith, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated female employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7-25, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper, Charging Party Paula Bathras, Kellie Brown, Tanya Smith, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated female employees by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7-25, above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant to pay Charging Party Elizabeth Cooper, Charging Party Paula Bathras, Kellie Brown, Tanya Smith, and other presently unidentified, similarlysituated female employees punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7-25, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
11

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Amended
Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
/s/ JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR Regional Attorney EEOC-Philadelphia District Office (including Baltimore Field Office) City Crescent Building, 3rd Floor 10 S. Howard St. Baltimore, MD 21201 Office #: (215) 440-2666 Facsimile #: (215) 440-2600
/s/ DEBRA M. LAWRENCE (Bar No. 04312) Supervisory Trial Attorney EEOC-Baltimore Field Office City Crescent Building, 3rd Floor 10 South Howard Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Telephone number: (410) 209-2734 Facsimile number: (410) 962-4270
12

/s/ RONALD L. PHILLIPS Senior Trial Attorney EEOC-Baltimore Field Office City Crescent Building, 3rd Floor 10 South Howard Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Office #: (410) 209-2737 Facsimile #: (410) 962-4270
13

 </s> Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Filed 04/14/2008 Page 1 of 21

r~
"1 COUR Y . :rlMW

IN TH EUN ITEI)STATESDlSTnlCTCOUKT FOR TilE OISTRI CT OF )tAHYlAND

EQ UAl. EMPLOYMEN' r OPPORTUNrJY )

COMM ISSION,

)

)

llJa IPR I~ P 11' 3S
( ., OFFICE CE

Pl aintiff.
v.
I': MS IN NOVATIO NS , INC., Dcfcndant.

)

)

e use No, RnU-06-CV- 1320

)

)

CO NSENT DECREE

)

)

)

- - - - -)

Il'\TROI) l 'cno:'(

I.

PI:1intifl, till' l'.S. Eql1ill ErnJlI(J~ l1Ien l OJlJ>lIrlllnit~ ('o!lltllb~ioll (Ilw "EEOC" or

"Cotllltli,...;ioll") ('ommull{'l'd Ihis <It-tiun on ~Iay 2:~. 2006, in Ih..: l Tnitt:d Statt·:-. Di:-.trit;1

or Court fur litt" District

~'I;H") i:lIlci, :\ortlwrn Dil"isioll, a~;lill:-.I DC'fC'ncianl EMS

Irmo\'lItions, Int. (" Ot'ft'tldnnn. In iL>; .\lIIcmk.d Cmnplitinl. the l'ommi...;sion allcp,cd th:.Jt

cOlIslrlt('llwiy disdwr~illp. (,h;lr~itlp. Parlii·... ~:Iizaheth Con~r unt! P:nrla Rathras; :-.t!xlIally

rcassiAninp, and dischargin~ claimant Tanya Smith: and M,:xually harassinv, :I class of

amended, 42 L' .S.c. ~ 2000l·. l't 'o4XI. ("Tilil' V II "). :2. :\.... a rl'sult of :-l'Itil'ml'nt di ...cu,<.;iollS, tht' COllll1l is..>;iOll and [)de ndallt It,l\'t' r~'s()I\"t:d tlwir t1iffcrt'lll'l'S <Iud haH' H!4H'cd that this :Idiun :-.hould be ~ttl\·d hy {'nlr... of Ihi:-. C'on"l'lll [)l·lTl'l·. Throu!4houl till" ('Ol iN' {It Ihi:-lili~<ltiol1, !kkilliani ha:-. dt'nkd, and continw':-' 10 cl l' n~, Ill<' :1l1t'AHlion:-. (lfTitk \"11 \'iolatin n~ ass{'11t'(l h~ till' EEOC. lIo\\cwr, solely in Ilw in\crl'st of <I\Oidil1~ the t'Xpl.'ns(' and inCOllH'nit'rwl.' (If litIgation. f)(,fl'ndanl has :lgn'('(.i to

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Filed 04/14/2008 Page 2 of 21

r('soh ...• thi:- malll'r h~ t'lIll'). nf Ihi... ('oll:-l'nl Dl>{'rC'l.'. II is lilt' inl('nt ofthl' partit,s Ihallhb CUIli<{,llt Deert'\: I)(,.J fin:,1 ond hi1l(lin~ scUlemcnt in full disposi tion of an~ anclllll <:I;lims

allt!!.l·d in thl' AIIl....nlk,d Complaint a~ain:-t lkk'ud:lut and em IX'h,l!f ()f Ihe persons

rl't'l'il in~ m()ndjl~ rt'lid" hI! arl' !bh'd !w!(l\\,

FI0J)INGS

:1, Till' EEOC is Ihe ,\~l'ner of the t;nilcd StUll'S GO\'l'rIllll('nt :lut hori1.<'d hy Title \ ' 1[ 10

illll'~til!lll(' :l1ll'J!,.ltiUIlS of un l nl\full' m plo~ml'nl d iscrimin:llion tx'('a\i~' of S('X, 10 hdn~ l'h il adiolls 10 prohihit uill:l\\ful lH':Il'lices, and to .....:l,k r\·lit,( for im1iliduah. affected h~

"ul'h pr:wtkt,....

Sllll'l~ for purpn'ot'''' of ,'uln Ilild l'n fOlT{'nlent of th is ('ons('nt [kl'r~'l', the p:lrli\,!s

:1J.\rl'{' Ihal Dl'fcndant i.. aI' l'mploH'r l'np;ay,l·d in an indu ..! r;.' :1 ffl'Clin~ t'Olllml'r('l' II lthi ll Ih\,

lIlt,.tnillj.; of ~l'l'li(ln 701(h), tID ;\lul (h) of Title \'11. 4:! l' ,$,C. St'ctlon :!oooc-(h). (~J .lIld

(h)

fl. Pun-unnt III Titlt, \'11. thl' parIit's at'l,ml\\ll't!gl' IIll' JUri:·,dit'tion of tIll' l 'nilt:d Sinks

I1blrit-1 Court for till' ni...trid of :'I1:m'bnd (:\ortllt'rn l1ilisiun) o\'('r Ill{' "Uhjl>{'1 matter and

owr thl' l~u11l'S to Ihi.. ca~' fur the ..o le purpUM' of t'nh'rill~ Ihis COll,Sl'll! DI:('I'...'(' ulIll, if

IH'('I' ........ II), t-nfon:iI1J.1. thi.. ])et rL'l.~_

6, \ 'l' II(1(' i<; Ilppropnate in the l)i...lri<.'t of \ Iar: laud (:\orlhcrn Di, isi(lll), Snl('l~ for

pnrpo.;('... of Ihis DI'('n't' and any pro("('C'dinp,S rt'!:ll('d 10 Ihis Dt"l'r!.-e. Dl,f...m];mt agrt'(.'s that

;tll slatulo~ ('onclilinns pn'l'l-'lknt 10 the institu tion of IhL.. I:l\,~uit a~ain!'ot DdcnUilll1 han'

hl'I'1I fu lfilled,

7,

11;11 in)!. l'x;llllinl'u thl' krill::. :1 lId pro)1 i..iun~ of ti ll' ('(lIl!'>Cllt [)elTt'l' iliid IXI~·d 1111 thl'

pll'adillil,-.... n.'....nnl..., :lnd ...tip\llalilln.. ofllll' 1l;.lrtil''', tire Court liml... tilt' (UlJuhlllJ.l.:

,

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Filed 04/14/2008 Page 3 of 21
\ l1w Courl has jurisdi('lion o\'\.'r thOc° !'Ubjl'l't maltt'r of this ,l('tinll ,,~ain."1 DOcofcndant and till' parlies :
JI1";!. TIll' right ... of ncfl'mtJnt. till' EEOC, and thiN' fur \Ihum tht: EEOC s<'-t'k.s rdil'f
(. The Cothl'llt Dl''''·r('(' <'OnlOl"lns I\l th the Fedloral RuIL'" of Chit Prnt'('dun.·, Tili~o \'11. and i.. l\oll in (kOrn~alioll tlf the rip,hls and pri\jJC'f.!,('!' flf any person. TIll' l'lIll!· fit tlu), Con ..cnt Ikt'/"t,\, \I ill !lu·t hC'r Iht." uhj,,-·(·tiH'sof T itk \ II ilnd " ill be 1l11lw 1X'..t illkrt,..t-; uf tl1l' Pi] rlie)' a nd thUSl' for "hulll the EEOC sC't'k... rdit'f. KOW. TIIEREFORE. IT IS ORDE IH~ n. o\DJ loDGEf'l .\X D DECREEDTH.\T:
NO~ -DISC RI~ll~ . ITIO"
co ndonin~ the Sl'-.:-h;lSl'd hurn.....1llcnl of an~ (,1llptOYl-'t'" T lw prohihiteu haras..mcnl illl.:iutll·... tIlt" liSt' of offl·lIshl' 01" dl'ruV.iltnry m1ll!lll'III:-., or ollwr \l'rh..1or ph.\'skid COlldu("1 haSl.'d Oil :111 imli\ idu.ll\. M:>., \\hil·h ('rea l('s (In inlirnid.l lill;!" ho~ti l ~' , or "nCll:-jv(' I\o rk ill~ environ lllent, or illkrfer('s \dlh the incl hid ll:ll"s \\011;, pcrf(J r m: lIl t~.·. Such harassment \ iolnlc":' Titlto \ "11. 1\ hi('h. in 1);1 rt. i~ '>\.01 forth l'K'h!\\ :
It shall lx.' a n un!a\d"ul L,tnp l o~ 111('111 pr:wlin' tor an C'mplon:r -- (I) , Itl di<.;('c·jlllind li- .Ip,nins\ <lin indi\itllldl Id lh rOc·~ IX'(·t to rhis or hOc°rl . 0 • tC'l"IIIS. L"olld itiu ns, or pri\ ilcv,l·... tlf l'lllploYIlll'nt , b...'-t:lll<.;(' of "1It' h individual"" . 0 • SOc'.-.: . 4:::! l".S.C. ~ :.!UOOl'-:::!(:I)(I).
1

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Filed 04 /14/2008 Page 4 of 21

~ON·RET"\L1~\ll ON

9.

l~kndant. iI ... offic('r., dini'!or:-. aj.\cnts, l'1ll])loy('('.......urr(".SON. a ...". igns, :lIld all

rx:rsolls in acl h (. n)lll.:l'rt or parlidpal ion wilh them UI' al1 ~ of liwln arc ('njoincd j nll ll, and

shall 110\ l' nl-\" ~l' ill. r'('pd!'>.11 or l't'!:-.liu tio ll (If all~ kind i1).!,ain~1 an~ 1X'r"on !x'c:tuS(' 1'Iuch

Pl'MIII, l'i lhl'l' in till' past or ill till' fHture: (0) oppo-:t'd all~ pl'nt,tic,· madL' unlawful or

I't';]'..onllbl~ Ill'ik-H'(ilo he Ilu[;mh.!undt'r Tit tl' \ '11 : (h) fil('d 01 d larg(' oj di.:;nimin<ltioll

\\'ilh lhe Cormni......ion Ill' a !l~ f,l ir '-'mpl l1ynll'nI pr:H'ti('l's a~cnl'\: ((') was idcnlifioo as 11

pOll'n tia l \\jln(".;:-; for thl' EEOC in all adion; (d ) n'qut:",tvd li nd/ or rCl'ci\\!d rdil.:f in

(I('Cnn\;.lIlCl' \, ith t hb Ill-cree; ((') pafl idp.l h.'d in an~ man UL'r in ;111 acl ion IIIHkr Tille \11 or
en in illl~' iml'!'oli!!,al iun !!,i\illf!, ri!-c III sllch ;tction ; or a!'oSl'rIL'(1 .111\' ri!!,h'" under thb Dccfl.X',

In Ihb n'p,ard, 1:>t'f~~ llclillll shall nol 1;1 kc all~ at:liun :J!!,:t ill!'oi ,111\ I>CNHl(s) \\ hich ('onS! it lIt('~

intimidation, tOt'rejon, rt!uli..tioll, h:lt"ssllIl.'nl. or i nl rrrt'n.'nt'\~ 'li th Ih(' c \ c rdS<' o f :-.uth

pl'r"m's riAh'" ltlldc r Title \'11 1)L>tJlN' of lilt' filiny. of Charge f\'ns, 120-:W05-01724C 1:.:

1:.! ()-2UU~-0\ L12(' wi th the EEOC \Ihich luml the ili\!-ois for thb (:aSl', or lX'cau~l' ~ul'h

J'ltr"on(s) !!,un- \l's tilllOIlY or as~i!-ota n l'l', (I t 1);'lrlid patcd in Hn~ IlWILl1C'r in a n~ inH.::!-oti,e.at ion

ell' pro('l't'dillt.; III {1 Jlllwel illll Ilil h thb ease IlJllit'r Till,' \'1 1,

IU::CO RU-1\ 1:.1::1' I ~.!;

10. Dd..·udan l sh;d ltotllpl,' wit h ,Ill appJk:1 hk' r"I'ord- kl'('pin)1, m :pLil"('IllCll1." (If Till(' \ ' 11

and Ihl' COl11lllis:-.inn .... I"l',!!,ulali!llls, inrludill)1, bulno! limili.'d tu, 29 Cor-,R, ~ 10U:l.14.

~..o\":.\ J))IISS] ()\"

11. Thb Dl'Ul,\', ht'in~ l'lltl'f l'd Idth the l"OIlM'n t o f thl' EEOC aud Ix-fcnd:ltI l, "hall nut

(:(lllstilu tl';11I adjILLiil'a1iull or findin!!, un thl' IHl'fih 01 thi:- (':I'ol' ;1Ilt! sha ll no1 Ill' enn..tru('(1

,' " an admission Iw Dl'f('ndant of n n~ \ iolilllOll 01' Tille \ '11 nr ilny uther In\\, rule Of

fl'~lllatilJn I"'al ing \\ it h or in l'Onn,'('!ioll \Iilh l'q U,11 t' mplnynwnt (lPIX)rllltlit~ ,

Case 1:06-cv-01 320-RDB Documenl45-2 Filed 04/14/2008 Page 5 of 21
CO\EBEP Ff \C ll.!T1F..f.) 12. TIll' prud~ioll~ uf thi ... Cotl-.('nl \)(,{,I'n_' shall "ppl~ In nil of !)t'fl'lldnnl\ f;]dlitic!' and :.III (lllwl' hx·ution... II h{'f\' it il- conclucl ill)!. it.. adil ili(':-;,
Ill-RAT IQliOF DEg<EE 13. Tim. ('ol1~nl (letTt'(' shall Ix- ill ['ffed for u Ix."rivd of three (:3) wars ami six (6) month" lromlhl' da ll' it b ('Itle red hy the Court.
i\I0NET..\RY RELlQ 14. Deft'lldalli .. hull pil~ mom:tary rcHd to !'aul:t Rathra:-. in tht· In\,,1 illllllunt of S:lS.ooo.oo. II hith ...hall 0,... to ml)l·I'~ltor.\ duma~l'''', Thi.., mOIll-'lary rdid ...hall ~ paid in four ('hecks m"dc p;1yahlc 10 Paula Bathr....., and sent to her at Iw r adcln·s,... which II ill Ill' pl'fI\'ided 10 DL'f\'nd,lIlt'.., (111111.,,('1 h~ tilt' EF.OC :11 th{' tinw of filing this DC('!"l'I.', Defendant (01' it-; a~l·llllldin,l.!, on ncfcndH 11 I'" b('htllf) ...hall mail thl·~t' four ]ll1ymt'nt~ hI Paulu Hathr:l~ h~ (wlilivd m.. il ill lilt' rollu\\i!1~ iI!lWUIlt.... , ;ulll in ,l(:mrd.l[l('l' \dlll follmdu,I!. pilymcnl ..t:hl'tluk': (a) Sn6((',OO dUl' not 1:111' 1' than Ih il1y (;30) {';tlt-lidar dOl,\'!-; after thi... CortS('n\ [)c('rl""t' hOI" 1""'\'11 \'nll'I'('d hy till ('Ullrt; (h) $6666,00 dUt, nol lall-r Ih;1II Ont' hundr<'l.1 1\'('IlI) (120) cak'n(\M days after thi... ('nn:'l'n! nl'(Tl'l' h;ls heell (,lIlt'red 1)\ till' ('ULlrl; «(') $6667,00 di ll' 1\(1\ !a1t.;I' \h:1I1 1\\0 humll't.'d ICII (210) ('iL1l'nd:lr <1;1\,... lifter thi:-; Cun:-;('III f)l'l'I'e(' ha .. tX't'lll'lltt'ri.'<I hy the Court: .tnd (d) S5000,OO du(' nolintcr Ihun thrt!c hundred :-;ixh t~6o) cJI('lHl:lr days arkr thi.., COIIscnlll('("r(,t' h as 1x'('11 en tered b~ Iht' Court. Within fourtl't'll [14) ('ilk'lldilr da~ ... of :lny and :11I ...II(:h p<lymcnb. D{'[t'ndan\ (or its tlp,enl acting on Ikfl'ndilllt':-. l)('h:.IO .. hall "'l'lId a p hutUl'OPY of Ih(' dlt!('k M'nt to Pimla Bathnt.... alun~ with 11 phU\tlCfljl\ oflhl' C('11ifil'd \laiil'l'('l'ipt, to till! EEO(":-;ilUOl'lll'y ofreconl. If), Ddl'ndanl ...hall pn~ 11101\('131'\' !'~Ii(.f 10 Eli i'~ l bdh ('ooper in the lotal amount of ~25,OOO,{)()_ \lhidl ...haI11x' t'olllpt' n<.:II01) ci:llll:lAc.. , Thi(.; monCf:lr:o rl'ii('j shal1 he paid in
;

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Filed 04 /14/2008 Page 6 of 21
four dlCt.:ks madc p.l\abll' tn Elil11bdh ('OOP~'I" :In<l <;cnt III her ott hl'r addrC'!'... which will Ix' p]~)vid...'(1 In I)(>f('ndant'... l·nlln~·l b~ III(' EEOC at Lhl' liml' of mill~ this Dl'cr!.'C. Dl'kndanl (or it ... ay.\'11 1 ill'linv, nn D('[\'nd,lIIt\ IwhalO ...ha ll mai l Ih(·st· fnur pa~ ml'nl" \0 I~li/"lhc lh ('noper h~ l...·I1il1l...1 I1l;1it in thL' rflllcl\\in~ .llllllunt .... :IlHJ in ;!(:t·unl:IIH.'i..· ,\jlh foll(l\\ill),: IK1)11H'111 ...dll·d uk: (ll) S666-.00 due not !;tll:r than thirl~ (~W) (';lkmlar da~.... afk!" this COII__l'n l 1)C'('rt,~, has hl"l.'11 l'n t('rt'(l h~ Ihe Court; (1)) S6667.00 <lUI.: not lal!;'r than OIlC' hundred h\l'nl, (l:'W) (·:.III'uda r days ufll'r Ihi s COll<.,(,'nl n(,\'l't·~· h:.ls bCl'n l'nll'R'd h) Ihl' COllrl: (l') 56666.00 dUl' not laUT tl1l111 t,\ O hundl'L-o lell (:.no) "al('lldar days •• fier Ibis ('oIlM'nl J)~'('n'l' ha... hl'('l1l'lIll"rt'(l hy Ihl' Cuurl; llnd (d) 85000.00 dul' not lutl'r than thf\'c hundl"...-d si\""ty (360) l'alt'mlar d;l~' aftt·], t his COn~l'llt Dl·('rcl.' ha... h..'{'11 I.'ntcn.'CI hy the Court. \\ithin tOllrtl'cn (14) cull'lld ar cloys o( an~ lind .111 sll("h P:l~lIlCllts, nl'fcntiant (or it... agl.'lIt ud illJ.; on 1J(·t\.'ndan t's IX'halt) shull sl' llll a photocop~ of thl' d wd. s\'nllo Eliwlx'lh Coorer, ilion).: \dlh a Jlho tocup~ of tilt· Cl'l'lilil'd ~1:ti1 I'l'l"(·illt. In tht' EEOC'.... atttlrm'~ of
rt.'"t'urd.
16, Deft'ndant ....hall p..l\ monl't:Jr~ rl'ikf In TaIlY.1 Smith in thl' lotal amount of S25,OOO.ou. \, !tidl .. hall hl' l'()IllI)l'ns:ltol'~ d;:lma~t's. T hi:. mOll{'I'l~ I'dil'f slw ll lx· paid in fnur {,ht·ds llIud{' p;l.\"ahll' to T'lll~;] Smi th, and s<.:n! 10 ht'r al hi' l addrt'ss I\hich I\ill I'll.' prmide<i In Dl"ft'ndallt':-. NltInst'l h~ tht· EEOC' at the titlll' offilinA Ih i:-- D{'el"l'l'. Dl'fl'ntiant (or it.o:; a~t' nl a("tin~ on O(,fl·nt!;JIl t's Ilt'half) ...halllllailllU'S{' four p:l\ lll('n ts 10 Tama Smith h~ l·l·I1ifil·d mail in till' (ollm, inA 'Imounl-.. and in 'K'lvrdU IICc \dlh f()lItJ\\in~ Jla~mcnl sclwduk': (,I) 56666.00 d ill' not lal('1' Ihan thirty (:10) c.1lcndar dn}~ aftcl' lh~ CUII'>l'lIt DelTl't' Ita... 1"II.'...·n l'ntCl"t'd hy tht' Court; (Il) 5 6667.00 dm' not 1;lll']' thnn om' hundrL'(1 I\\l'lIl~ (I:.!O) l'all'lIdar days il ft l'r this ('othi..·l1l DCl"l"l'C hilS h"·l'n l'ntl'rl'd h~ thl' Court; (e) S6667.00 dUl' not hltl'r than 1\\(1 hunci r(·d It'll (210) cail'udal" da~~ uftl'r this Consent

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Filed 04/14/2008 Page 7 of 21
I).'cr"l' ha... i:X'f.'n l'lIil'n-ci lw tlw Cunrt: ilnd (d) S5uOO,oO ti nt' nollah'r than lh rl·l'lllI lldn.'(1 s i xl~ (:\60) t.dl'nd ur dit~:-. after Ihi... Cn [\~n l Ik('rl.'\' h"slw('l1 ..:n ll'n 'd h~ th ~' COLl r l \ \' ithi n fourteen ( 14 ) call- ndu r du~ .. uf .. n~ a nd all"'UI,:h 1 l:I~llk'lIls. Ddendan t (or ill' a~l'IH a("lill~ Ilil Ddenda nl ·... Ix-half) shall ...en d H phnto<'op,\' of the dlt'l' k til'll l tn T"n~a Sm it h, al()l1~ \\ ilh tl phnlf)('op.1 uf Ihl' ('l'rl ifil'(\ ~ I ai l rc-l"t'i]ll, to Ihl' EEOC... atlonw,' of rl'cord, ,.." Ddl'lld:mt :-.hall IXI~ 11If111l'\nry rdil'l 10 K£'lIit' HrO\I'n in the total amou n t 01 S:w,ooo.oo. 1\ hidl ..,h"I1I)1,' ('ollllx'n,llur,' d;III1;1~l':-', T lti... mond;try rdit"f ...hall he pa id in four thl'tl-- Illad.. pa\-ilbk In Kl'Jlk B11I1\ll, 11 11d 'l'nt to her at h('l' atldrcs.... Idtil-h I\' ill 1M.' prm'ided 10 D('[l·ndant·... ('ounsl'] b~ lilt' EEOC :tt till' li n K' of filin~ thb IkCl'l'l' Ddl'luianl (or ils ;!).tenl attillj!. 011 ndC'nd;111t':-; \x·half) ...hall 111:1 il Ilw'>{' four p"~ IIll'nt~ lu Kl'llit' Bnlllll by lx'rtifil'dlllail in Ill(' lollmdn.g :11lIOti ll t S. ,l11d in :Il'l'ord a ll("t' " illt ff)I1O\d n ~ p;!I'!ll£'nl -.('ht.'du!t·: (a) 85000.00 IhlL" nol l" ler th.l n Ihi rh (:30) (·;t lend:tr tim ... ;lfter Ihi~ COIlM'1I 1 Ik'tl"Ce hll!oi hl't'n l'nk l'l..'d by Ill\' ('nun; (It) "Suon,no dUt' nol IUIl' r thon Olll' hu ndrt'd twcnty ( 120) tah:nd;u' d ;'lys af1l'r this ConM!1l 1 t:k('n.'<.' har.; tx.'C1l (' IIIt"rl"(1 hy till' ('ourt: (c)
S50 00,OO tlu,,-' not l atel" Iha n !lIn Itund rt d 1l!1l (210) c:l il'mla l' (by.. a ft ~r this ('onsl'nt
Dl'Cn.'..: h"... lll'\'n l'llh.'n:U h~ Ilw Cuurt: Hnd (d ) 85000.00 due nol iall'r Ihan Ilt n'l' h u ndn.·d ...i\ly (360) (';dl'tld:1I' da~.., aftl'I' lh b ('un ->C1l1 111.'("'(."(' has hl'(.·n c n ll'n:d h~ tht' ('ourt, Wi thin
fourtl'c-n (14) ,·.all'ltda r d ay... oj allY a nd "Il",ut:h llayllll'nt..., Defend:1ll1 (ur it... a,e.(·nl acti ng
nn Dl'f(·nd:H1I\ .. h.,hall) ...ha ll :';t'lld a p h o l ol'n p~ of Iltt' tilt'd, senl 10 Kcllic 8nlllll, alo np.. \I'ilh a pho\(K.'oPY of tl1l' C('rtifi('(1 \ I;til r...·td pl, tu 11ll' I-. EOC'·... a tt ()rlll'~ ()( l"l,(·ord. IH, lkfl'ndant ...11<111 ]la.' 1111Jt1l't a l~ rd id 10 .J amie Br:.",hl'l" ill tbl' lulOlI alllOUlI l of 810,000.00, lI'hich ...lw ll l)(' l"()IHlwlI"illon dar l1:t.l!l':-., Thb monl'lan rl'i ief ..hall 1)(' paid in four ('h<'eks made p;I~;lh l £' In ,l;.lInil' Hraslwr. a nd !-ClIt Itl iwr al Iwr addn.>s." Idlil'h \\"i ll hI.'
p l'O\ iell'tilt) Dl'Il'lttia lt t'... t(lull-.<>I hy th..: EEOC :I I lilt' tiull' (If fi lin ~ this Deerce. Dcfendant
7

Case 1:06·cv·0132Q·RDB Document 45·2 Filed 04/14/2008 Page 8 of 21
(or iI ... ll!!£'nt al'tin~ Uti Ikfl'1Id<lnt'... Iwhat !) ...111111 mai l th£';.\' four pa,\ Illl'nb tf) .J.llnie Ura"ht'r b~ l't' rlif1('(\ mail in the fol1mdnv, amounh, and in aCl'Ord:UIC\.' hith follnwi n ~ pa~ll1l'1l1 sclwdtlk: (a) S:!.'joo,OO dUl' not 1<lll'r Iha ll Ihirt~ (30) l'~ilcndar dil\ ... alkr 111i... CIlII!->cnt [){>tTI.'l' h"... 1>0.'1,'11 l'nh.'rl'U h~ tIll' (uurt ; (h ) S2!=;UO.OO dill' not latcr IIMI1 onc hundr....d I\\(·nty ( I:.W) (:<lk'udar day... afkr Ihi!-> ('011'-1.'111 Decrl.·l· h.,o.; IX'l'u I.'nkn'<! h~ till' Court; (e) $2500 ,00 due nol lnler Ihan two hundred It'n (210) calcndfl r d:l ~s nner thi.. Conscnt Dt'('rl'{' has hl,.'~:n 1.·l1ll' rl'(l by thc Cnurl; :u1(1 (d) 82500.00 due no t bte r than Ihrl.'t hundred :.ixly (:~60) calendar d..,ys a fll-r this Cun"" nl Ill-crt'£' ha .. I)('l'n cllh'rt'<l h~· the ('ourt. Within fourtel"ll (a4J I,'alt-mllll' d,lh of all~ :lIId all ..ueh pa~ IIl C llt.., Lhe'fendalll (or it... ;IV-till i1tli n~ on Ikfl'ntlanl's I'll'ha lt) ...Iwll '-{'JIll (I pho l nl:op~ of tIll' dll.'Cl. '>l'u l Itl ,Jamit' Ur..l~h(' l', along 1\ illl 01 phOIO(,OPY of lIlt' Cl'l1ifil.'ci \lail I'l'l'('ipt, to t hl' F.EOC... attorTlI.'Y of rt'('o rd 19, Ddl'nJanl ~hall Jla ~ J1lond;lr:. rclil'f to .ll's,..ka &olf (fnrn1l'l'Iy Itt'no) in tht' lot;, l nllh)l1 III of S10,000.00, II hidl ~h,, 11 he t't)I1lPI:ll~;ltuc) dama~l''''' Th i... 1Il11ll1'1UC) rdief ~hall
Iw paid in four d't'('b nMl,k· pa:.ahlt' lo,Jl'!'>.si(·a St.-It. and '>I.'nl 10111.'1' ;It Iwr add rt·...... wh il,'h wiJllw prmidl'd 10 1),0(('11(1>1111'" COUIl'>l.'1 h~ tht· EEOC at thl' lime of filinp. this Dct'r!'\'. Drfrnd.111t (fir it... :l~l'l1t ;ll'ting on Drf('lIda nl's hchalf) ~ h :l ll ma il thc...c four pa~ ments 10 ,h:!->Sil:'1 Self h,\ t:lTtifil'(1 lIlail in tht· fn!lowillA amount:., a nd in 11l.'t·tmlanl'c II ilh fu\llll\ inA panncnt ~'hl.'du1t,: (a) $2500,00 dne not Il1 ll'r thnn thirl:, (30) ('a l('n<lnl' diL\~ aftN Ih i..,
CUlisent 1)('1.'1'1.'1.' hns 1x.'C n cnkn.'(1 hy the Cnurt; (1)) 82500,00 dill' lIot later than olle 111IIIcl rt,<ltw(·1l1:. ( 1:20) (';II£,l1t'i:lr lIa:.-.; ;I t\(' r this (OIlSI:llt 11('('1'1.'(' has IX'C1l cntcr('<1 h y th<('ourt; (c) S:.!:50o,nn dUl' !lui 1:11~r than 11\·0 hllndl'l'd kn (:!IO) calL'ud.,r 1.1<1):0. after this
(ono.;"lIt Ik,'rt'l' ha.. 1'10..'('11 t'ntl'rt,d h\ till' ('Olll't: ,lilt! (d) .'52.')00,UO dul,' !lot hILer th.1n Ihfl'\.' humln'd sixh (:i6o) t'nll'lldar d,I\<: ath' r Ihis ('Ol1:-a'lll DI:'('n'I.' ha ... hl'I'1I l'n lcred h~ Ihl' ('ourt. Within lomit'l,'u ( 14 ) cn ll'udar di\\ ... of ltn,\ and all ~lI(:h pay Illt'nh, Dcfl'lldanl (or its

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Fi led 04/14/2008 Page 9 of 21
a~l'nl 1l{'ling on lkfloud:wt's Ix'halt) ..hall ""Otl a ph(llot'oP\ of Ill(' check 0.;('111 10 , 1 1..~So'iica Sdr. alulI~ wilh a I'holotopy of till' CI..'rlificd :\1:1il n,(,tipt. In till' CEOC's'lttlll"!H.'.\ of rCl"Onl 20, In IIH.' 1..'\l'1I1 th;11 Ull~ {)r Ihl..' ahmc-t\.' fl'r(·lltcd p:1\ IIIt'lIl .. t':mllo! ht' dt'!iH:-rcd 10 thl' !ll'rsoll'" dl'''i.e.nah'd al tilt' ;Hldn's.";('__ IH'O\'itkd, Defendant (ur il:- ap,I..'1l1 :wlmp, Otl Dt·fendau!'.. behal!) ...ILdl pl'(Jlllpll~ ('OIlI::u:1 EI-;OC ScniorTrial \lIornl..'~ ROllakl L Phillip!. 10 ohtaill I.'LllTl'nt addres,>('S lor ...uth p<'r..,ons for tl1l' pU I'PUS{' of prompt C\,rtifi(-'{! :\laiJ ddh ('1'\, or. if il ('II r!'enl maih n~ addl'l'So'i i.. not ;J\ililahlc. ttl Illlll'n\ i'o(.' Illa kt, :l rr<lllp,t'!lICn! S for prompt pa~ men!. I)l'fl..'udatlt ...lIall thl'rcaftl'r promptl~ repurt all~ ('Horls mad\.' tn ell'li\ l'r paYllIl'nl lind :-.hall t'\;rrdst' due d i li~l:ncl' In compldl' sud. dclh cl), 21,-\flrr th(' ('ondusioll of any c."lll'll(l1lr ~ l':If in which Dl'fl'ndanl ha ... mack pm menl of nlOlWlary rdid 10 ;\ho\'('-rcfl'rCllccd claimants, Defend"ll! shull prolllptl~ i·,.<_u(· In all~ pt'r'onn:-.lo \,hom il ha... mack pa~ menl umli:r Ihi~ Dl.'crl..·L' an IRS 1-\11'111 iOCJC)-:\Ii.. c fnr Ihost' mont'la,,' n'lit'1" ,IIlUIIIIlIs, Ill'f~ 'llC laut l1la~ dd\\l'r tlw....· IRS Form.. tu till' d;limanh Ihl'llup,h ,til ap,l'lIl 111111..; tll'hillL ::!:.!, L'l1lil il has 111,,11(' full P:I,\lll(,1l1 of monelilry rl'lit'( prm idl,d hy this ('ol1"l·nl I)('('rl'l.' for Pauli! Balin;..... Kdlil' Brtl\\l1 , EIi/:tIX'lh ('oupt.·r, TUIl~a Smith..1.lIll i,· Bril...lll'r and .J\.·s"ica St'll, Dd(,lld:lul ..11<111 nol fill' for ixlnkrUlitt',\, IX' w id, Ilr takl' i.ln~ adiull thai Ill/u id pr('wnl il fl"(lIll rnakin~ full p;l~lIll'nl of llIo11(,lal':'< 1't'lkf tn 11ll' ahme-rd('n'lIC'l.'(1 dai manis, :.!:~, Odl..·nd.. nl iI).!,n·l.'S Ihilt if Ihl..'re i.s an~ '1IIl'mpl to -.ell. or .1 S3lc ot', thl' Ddcndant
or lUld /or it... OIs...;('I .. belnl'e tht pa~ 1111..'111 .IIlY 1l1001l'tilr~ relil'f tIlIe Ulld,'!' thi.. nl~('r('(', till'
halam'{' of :tlllTlfIlWI.11) rdid I><t~ 11I\.'/lh ~ l'l It) made limier till' Dt.·l'I\.'\.' ..lIull be illllllcdiatd~ dill' and pa\'ahle. If Dl'ft'1ltlnnt fail ... 10 make all} I"l~ Illl'ni uf 11I0nl'I<1I) rl'iit·f in fil II ill :l('('ol'danl.'(' \\ilh lilt' P"~lI1t'tll ~d\("dllk' S('I fpl'lh ;Jhml', Ilwll Iht;' printipal ~11J1l (I f Iht' unpaid habun' ...hall bl'('Ollll' illlll\l'(!i:lld~ dill' and pay•• blc,
'J

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Filed 0411412008 Page 10 of21
EQLTL\ IU,t: REI.IEF: :-..' OTI CI~ TO EEOC OF (:lAl~-tS 24, \Yi thin Ihirl~ (30) calendar d.1YS of the im;litu liol1 of imy j lldicinl Of :ldmini.:;trali\'(' proci.'ed in~ {indlldiu,l1. thi.' fi1in~ of iI charge of di!->t"rilll ination or C"Ol1lplni nt \\ilh the .\lilr;.lund Commis....ilill till Ill lman Rl'lations (lr an~ olhl'r Fair Enll)lll~ml'nt Practk(':-,
Pl,()(,tocd ing allcp,t,s !'C,\:!s('1(ual harasslllent or other /'o('\: discri m ina tiOl l und cr Tilk· \'11, EXl'l'uthl' Order 1I:.!46, Ill' :-'\;Ik u r lotal Inl\, Def('nd.-.nt s ha ll ~i\'l' nolk,' 10 11ll'
Commission of tl\l' in..:lilution of such proccl'din!4, \Ihit'h s hall im'Judl' the f()ll\min~: the
IlAArit'\('d k,~" dail1wIII. ('han!..inA 1><11'1\', pla i1l1iff, pO\('lItial plaintift); thl' rull name ;lIld
hU:-;.1TWs...; h:kpho!ll' numlwr of a n ~' !'l'pr('senla!1H{s) (If the Pt'!'SOIl(S) ap.,gri('wtl; ,Ind tlw sp...eilit: alll'~at inll"" of di~cri l11il1:1 1ion macil' h~ tIll' P(,I':.;oI1(S) :1AAric\ ed, if knoll n b} a ny (If Dl'fcnciant,
EQ!.lJT.i!lLE RELl EJ~: __SI'EC;I FIC RESTR1CnONS REC,\RD1:-..'.Q...O\\':-\ERS,OFFICERS,..,\:"WJll8ECTORS
2.<;. Whilt, st..tyillJ.\ at ,111~ :t('('OInmotlulioll k.~.. hold. moIL-I. condominium) durinp, an~
thilt is ndjact:nt or ;](\join inp. to the roOI11 of an~ female ('lT1plo~t:e or indl'pl.'lldent con l rador, un l"...." ol lll'1' '\ l'ril H g~'lnl· nt s .lr...· nut p()s~ihk, Defendant'... n\llll'r.., officers, and/or d;red()l'.. ..:hal1 nol t'ntcf thi.' ho \£'II,(I(11lI of un~ femall' l'Ill]lln~t'(' (If indq)l'ndt.:nt C{ln lrnclor. 1101' :-.h<111 hl' in l'1h: ur l)l'l'mil Jll'r l'Jllr~ il1lu hi., hotel room, TIl(' n'q uirl'lIwnt!' of this par:lgrilph .,11;111 nol I'll' ('oll:-;lnll'd In appJy 10 f('111111(' t'lll pl ()~l'('~ or indq>endl'nl ('onl r;'lc tors \\ ho a 1'(' 111~'llIhcr:-; of Ihl' 0\\ IK'I~, Ilffit'l'rs, :'1 nd/or d i[,t't:iul's' famil~,
10

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Filed 04/14/2008 Page 11 of21
26. lkfcndalll'.; O\\!ll'r". ()ffkl'rs, and/or rtirN::tors "hull not mak(' any M"W;1!rcmarks about or in tlK' pre~'tl("l' of. nr ...t'xual ad"alll'l's lo\\;\nJ, ,HI) cmplo)C'c:-. or indqlCndent contractors Ilf Ddcud:ll11. Hud l-ohall nnl ("",pHdtl) or implicitly rcql1('s! dnl('s or sl'\Lwl favors from any of Dl'fl'lId,wl':-. employees or independent contmdors. This duly to r({min from sl1th ('oneltl!.'! is in addition tn, no\ in lieu of, ollJ('1' legal requiremen t.. l'~I:'lbli~h('d under this ('oll"l:nl D('~rcl! or (edL'ral, :.\a l(' or \o(:allaw.
lill..!.JTABI.E REl.l EF; REI'Q lrfS TO EEOr Of D1SCRI:-'I I:\,:\TIOi\' .\LLEC.\TIONS .\:\1) \\'IT;\E~SEn (,O~12l ' (,T
27. Defendant shaU ...uhmit \\I'iUl'll reports to the COlllmi,~ion I'('p,nrdinf; Ihe fnllO\\in?,:
lI11 a('tilln~hll' cla im untll'r Till.· \'11 or nolo and al1\ a('lioll tah'n in r('spon"l' In till' ('olllpi<lints, nud (h) I'('p,rll'dl('ss of \\hethN nll~ complaint \\as Ill~dl' or nol, all
h:'lr:l...slllcni or otlH'r SI'X disc'riminalion ma~ han- ot'l'urr('d. aud any ,l(·\ ion tllkc' n in rC'sl)()I1SC In tilo..;(" cirCllmstance''''. Thl' I'tporls must be Sl'llt to thl' ('ommis... ion",; l1allirncJr(' Fit'ld Orlie!!. 10 thl! attention of 111<' SUpCI'\ isory Trial Allorn~y, Idlhin thirly (30) cak'udar
dny~ of nn~ complaints \0 sUJ}Cl\isors or ,\ithin thirty tw) calendar da~s of II PCr.;OIl with
lll<lllll!!,l'ml:nt or ....up."l\·isol';. authority aC<luirin,e, adual koo\\Il'd/!,t' of la('\<; p,h' in~ rise to a
on:urrl'd, \\'hiciwH'r is tin-I. Su('h rt.:pol't..: ...hall ('ontain Ih(' follo\\in~: a dl'laik,d 1l;1I'rath'l'
of Ill(' ('iI'CUlllstUIIC(,"" of tlw c'omplain l or uClluirl'd knOl\lcdp,l': the date!>. ilnd limc's f)(.'rtint:nt 10 til.... ('01l1plailll IIr knohlL'd}1.l' hl'inv, reporkd: the allegations of ::;(,\/~xuid
"

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Filed 04/14/2008 Page 12 of 21
hllr,lssmcul or ollll'r scx di~rimina!ion nnd t he fach knO\\n and/or alleged that are rl'ie\anl \0 sllch complaint: a specific dl'scriplion of the knowledge of ()( Issible disc:rirnill;t!iwr thai '1.[1'> aequil'l'd hy :rn~ person Idlh lIlana~e!lll'llt or supI.'I"\'i so~ (\uthori!\': tIl\" full nanw, joh liIIL', '-(Wi:l1 sf'ew'ity lllJl1l h,,'r, \\ork :Jc\dr('~.... la<;t known home
.1tl,' address. and 1;11'>\ I\nO\l11 hUIlll' It'll'phone ull l11l)(,1" of complain'lIIt: lilt' full [Wille, joh
title. :mel II"0rk nddrl·s,... of 111l~ person \\i lh n1.l1ll1gcnwn i (lr super\-j.,ory author;l) with lI('qLlircd "nOI\ kd~L' rlf pos!-ihlt' d iscriminalion: I he full nOl nlt', job I it Ie and ll'Ork "ddrcs... of any pl'rSUJI-> II hn rl.·l'M, ell any t:mnplaln ls; if (Jlhcr Iha n Ihl' COlllpl<l inan I. Ihe rull [1<1 1Ill'. job lilk-. ..(x-ial S('('lIril~ rHllnhel". \\'ork address, la<';l knOhll home addre<.;s, 111le! last known hWIll: leiepholl(' numht'r flf (I) any p(>rson a llegl'd by a ('Clmpl:linil l1tlo have Ix'ell a \ i£'tim (It" di!'cr imillali()11 or, \\hl'IT Ilwl'(' has IW('11 no ('omplaint, (:2) Ihe potl'll tial discriminatee II"ho i:-; Ihl' sUbjl'd ut th...' knll" It·dp,!,; :J(:qllired by:.l person lI'i1h nUlml~(;mcnt Dr MlllCr\'isc\~' aUlhority; the full nanw, joh lith-, lIork addrr.:s. nnd profr"-,,ionnl rl'lnrionship 10 th£' l'Cll1lplainant or poll-ntbl dhwrimln:lt ct· ot the Iwt'SOIl or pt'rsOIlS \\' IHI:-:l' ('onducl 11'> thL' "Ilbjl,t__t of n l'OlIIpln illl Ill' acqui 1'('<1 kno\\ ledge I){'inp. T{'porle(\: and Ihe full nam(' . job t itll" ,lnd \lorl-. ilddrt,,,-<.; of an.\ knol'n or allc~ed "itnl'ssc", 10 the incident:. <Jllegt.'(1 h:- n I'ornplainanl or j'('pOTIL'cI h:- a l)I'r...on Idl ll malHl,l!.l'mrnt ur slllx' r...iso~' aUlhor i l~. Su{'h n'pOI'ls ll11ht Ix' upd.lled and senl 10 the Commi-;sion's Baltimon' Fi\'lti Offi<.'C I.'n: ~ Ihi~ (30) eall'ndOlI' da~!o. Ilwl"'aftt'r unlil linn! 11('l ioll is Inl.:(·n h} Defendant (Ill Ih(· l'nll1Jllainl or Ilw d1"cuJl)slances <';lIAAcstin~ possihle sex discrimi nation. fk fcnd:u1\ shall append 10 all report.s requir",'d b~ this prolisioll of the Ikcrcc any and al! documents genl.'!'atcd 01" ohtainl'd in lhe eOl!!'Jo,(' of il s in\('sli).!,alions. ille\ l1din}!" hut nollimi lt'd 10, tln~ il1\csl ip.alor;. I'l'porl"', mCItlOl',ttJdu. Idlnt'.":-, slult'nwnl.... affid:l\·its or ntlwl" il1\ ('stip,ntion-r('lalcd ma l('rbl.....
12

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB

Filed 04/14/2008 Page 130f21

EQL'IT.\ Ill .\-: RELI EI~ PO L1CII:S .\\: Il TR .\ Ir\ 1\'(; ::!8. Dl{f,:mlan l ...hall ..dbert' In a '>I.'x/:->£'xlI<l1 h:.ras....llll·nl p')l ic~ th•• t b l'onsisll'nt \,'ith tl1l' rl'(jllil"l;nlt'nh of Tille \'[1. Such polity sha ll cOlllaill at 1t':!!>1 the following eIL-men!s: ( I ) a dl'finitin n of ~'xtl;ll hUf(I''''I1I1.!ll l Ihnl (k...l'['i!X-S "'u('h hlll'a:-;,>uU.'1l1 ill ,. manner consi ...\cnl \\illt the l"l'qu in'IIll'II I:-. ufTil\{> \ ' 11 ; (2):t dl'limtion 01->(':-':\1;11 hM(lSSllwnllhal ind lldv~ {al nlh'n"i\(' and u1l\I('!t:onw t'cmdtu:lllwl is not o\l;rtly <;('< Iud in nature hut thai is ll1ot katl'd 1)\ Sl'X/J.!,l'lllil'r ;tlld (h) harassment b":">l'd (Ill ]lrt'J.;ll:I l1('\. childbirth , tllld rciah'd IIwciic'li
('olldi lion"; C:i) ,. ...("h'me nl tl1:,1 "\' \ 11;11 harassllll'lll dol,l l l':- both fL'den.l a nd s tall.' I.." and
will nol ht· loll'raled b:-- Ikf~'l\danl: (4) a ...la ll·llll·nl I h:l ! :<ol'xual har.t~lIIt'n! .... pmhihit L'd and thHt thc polit·~ proh'ds :,11 l' mpl o~ l'('''' fm m .....·\unl hnr.Is.<.,nwlll h~' any (X·r...on. induding 0\\ IIcr.... dirt·clon;.. (:orpomtl' Uffi('CI'-;, m.m<lt!,l·'.... supt'n i'oOl'S. co \mrl..crs uf all~ ranI.. or I)o...ilinll. (·ontr.l<"lul"!', lind l:u~!onll'l'S: (5) 11 ...la\t'lll(·nl thai all employee:-; of whnll'\(' r nmk art' rt',,()(lIIsihlc for implelllenlill~ the p(llil':' ;1IIt! for COllll£'r.l ling 11I1I~ in itl. cnlim:clm'lll; (6) n pr{l\ision Ihal tlin..'<.'I"lIl1 PCI-...cltls 10 reporl M".\l1;l1 hnrn'''Hlcllllo nn:,> surcr\'is!~r. all\ managcment ufficial or to Ihe t ·,S. E'IUill F.mphl~111l'n! Opp()rtunil~ Culllllli......itln 'It thl' folltl\\in~ IHIIl)lll'l's: (4 10) 2ot}-!:n:p. (410l201)"2-:'34, (800) 661)-4000. 01' TIl' ;11 (Soo) ()fJ9- 68:w: (7) a :-tatcllWIlI that it b. 11ll' dut) of all "''' lx·n'js(Jr... and all manap.l'llIl'llt uITid"l... \\ ho rl'('ei\c a c!ltnplaintlJf hara",sllll'nl 10 rl'porl till' l'Omplainl 10 OIl!' or Illon' mana~l'll11'nt nffi('ial... who rh·fl· ntl:lIlt s hall dt,...i,l!,.nnt(' and "'I)('cificall~ i d('nt if~ a... n'~po l hihk' f(Jr rl'l'l' hin;?, and :\din.1!. upon compla ints uf h:.II"I ~"'lIIel!I, \\110 Sh;lll lx' til{' Opt'rat ion" :\lanav.,cr, o r hcr/his "'Ut'tl':Nlr if s he/Ill' I~ no lun~cr l'lII plu:--l'ti h~ Dl.fendant, and ...Iwl! not hI.' an (j\\·ner 1)( [)('fC'nda nt : (8) a statl'lIwllt Ihat it is Ihe dut~ of nil ...lIfK·ni..... 11'S lind m:lllil$!,('llll.'nt official.. to monitor thl.' \\'orkpluC'l' for <.,(''\ua llmra,>slllcnl lind that if the.\ '>u'>pcct that ..;uc:h hamS-S Ellen ! Iws taken placl" it is their dut:-- Itl report it 10011('
11

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Filed 04/14/2008 Page 14 of 21
or 1I10re IIwn:lp,CIllI'IlI offil'ial... II ho ndcn<ian l ...hall dC<.iv,n:tte and srlC:rifi('nlly i{k'n l ify a... rc:-.ponsibk for n:(,{, j,inp, tllle! ,H'li ng UpOI1 complaint s of h anls~ m ('nt. 'Iho slwH h(' the Operatiun... I\ la11,)g('I" or tll'r/ hi... s u cce S:.;(lf if 1'>1lC'/ ill' is no lnnV-t'r l'mplo) l'd hy Defendant , ;Ino ...hallllni lx' ;'Ill 0\\ [ll'l' of Deft' mianl ; (1.) ) it ..t;tlt'me nl that \'n lplo~f'{'" of <l11~ rank <11'('
or rl'quired to re port any incirh'll l:'- sex t!;!) har;I:o.smcn\ thai they uhst'f\'t'; (10) a ...talt.-lIlt'lit
Ih:1I ('Jllpl(J~(!'{'<: \Iill not he rdaliat{·d il?,ainst for re porti ng haras.."m<.'nl; (11) a sia ll'llwnl
Ih:lt reports 01 har:ls..<;I1ll'nt and in\'t'stip,Mion" of Iho'f' reports will he kept ('onfidcntial unless dis(,:[O'lUl"l' is required rOI" in\l:~tip,aliotll) r b~ I,m ; (l~);'l ~tatcnl(,:nl tl w l a ll n.'porl ...
~ha l llX' in\'t'~ t i,l!atl'd pl'Ompth :lnd imparti <l lh: :1Ilt! ( 11) a !-.tatement warn in~ tha t persons 1\ ho l'np"l,l!l' in s(' xlIai har:ls:-tlwnl \\il\1X' s ubj(·c\ lu dh.dplioll ry arliOl), II P In and indud inp, imnwdiatl' disdl:lr~t'. ndcndilflt shal! dislrilmll' ,I enp~ uf ill-O s,'xual harassmen t policy In al! ,'UlTent onin'l"" l'lll pl(l~"('~ and ind,'lx'lldelll ('ont rudun, lIithin [I\l'nly-om,' (:H) c;ll~lIdill' days of till' l'nll) of Ih;:- ('on<.;{'n l [)t'rn'(' h~ Ihe lOllrt. lkfcntia lll ~ ha ll prol'ide" copy of this polil'~ to all 1It'1\ oflicel's. cm plo~'cl's a nd illlkpcndt'lIl con tractor., hin'tl dllrin~ th,' ol>cratioll ofthi~ DL'Crl'e (m sllch Pl'fSOll'S li f!'>t day 0\ work. :!q, Ol'fendanl ~ha!l rcqllin: nil ('\l1Tent and fuhu'l' (j\IIICfS, ufficcrs and employees 10 atlclIli tfainill)!. rcglmlin).,: the n:qu irclIlcn\s of Title \ ' 11 , with p:lrtitular t'lllphasi-. 011 sl',/~,:'(ua l I Hl ra~"nH.·nt ami ol her filrnl .. of M·... db,c rim in'l tiol1. The tr'linin~ shall Iw not les!- than 1\10 (2) nOli],,>; in duration, In lIdditi{lll, the OJ)l' !':l tiolls r. 1alla,l.ll..'r, or ht'r/his SII('CP">."OI'S if ..he/ Ill' j", n{llnn~lT l'mployed h~ DdC'nciant. !-haJl I'l'tt'iW not ks:o. t han fOll r (4) additiona l hmll" uf Ira illillg rl:).:ilrltin/.\ inw:o.lign tion. prl'll:lllion ami (:url'l'd ioll of .. exual har;I:->;mellt. Surh trainl llA 1:- to he prOl'ided h~ a quulifil'd third-part' a l Ill(' ' ·X 1WIls..' of Ddi:ntla nt, \ll lh fl)n1w t and l'ont,'nt of traini n,e. SUbjl"'\ 10 r('l;c\\, h~ the ('o!1lrn i ~sioJl. TIll' tr;lining mil>;' be l·unducfl·d \\'it hi n 11\1) (2) months aftI,.' I' ('ntry (If this

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Filed 04 /14/2008 Page 15 0f 21

Decree or 1"'0 (2) month..; aftt'r thl' ('nmllll'I1('('1ll('nt of ('mployml.'nt for all n('11 hin:~ in sud, po:-;iti(IIlS , Tilt: EEO( OU1-.1 hl' not ifieu. in \I'ritin~, <1" to the id<"l1tit~ and qualifica tions

of thl' lrailll'r, ,Ill tonll'tli (If J'ltl'h tra ining (indudin,l-\ trainin)!, manua ls lind handout

ttl1ltl'rials), lllC'thod 01 prc:>o<"tllaliotl. letlJ.!,th ur traininy, COltr;,('(~) :md till' !HUllC:'> tllld Joh

titles of ath'rul('('s \Iitllin Olll' (I) month of sllch training. Ddl'Jldant shall han' Ih<.· option of dtil'otaping the flr.;1 training S(,...."i01\ and 111l'1I fulfillinp. its dut~ 1(1 p\'O\;d(' an~

...UhSl·qltl·nl Ir:l rnin).!, S{·S..;iOll,'" n,'qlLir{'d h~ this DC(Tl'C by J'(.·qu irin!!, illlcndallcc of tr:. i!lees ut u "it'llin).!. of th\· I [lIt'Olar)!.', \n.' IndrWl' \I hu f l.'cci\"(':-. training h~ I il'\I ill)!, n dd('rllapl.' Of:l

pn'I'ioIiS s('s..;jnll ...hall Ill' ~i\l'n the n;l1lW and t{'l{'phrlnt~ number of a qualified eontnel

person I.'nlpl(l~l·d hI the third-party tra iner <llld in...trllded to direl"l au) question"
n~~ar<iing tIll' C(lntl.'llt of the truining to thaI con l;]d pl.'l~nll. Ir Defendant eXcrc1!'iCS its

option 1(1 {"undue! traillill~ h~ d d l."otllpC. II l.·Op~ of the dtil-u tap{' shallll\..· prm'ided 10 Ihe

('oJlunis:-'!(J1l \I ithi 11 011<" (I) mont h 01 the Ir:li nin).\ Ihal 11,1:-; I idl'otnIX'(1.

EQL' IT\BI.C REI.IEF: POSI J\G OF r>:OTICE

ur 30. l>t.'11.'11(.1.1I11 !ihall p()~1 a COp.I

Ihl." ~ol i ct, utlached us AII:tt"lmWIII \ in a

COtl!ipicIlOU'" ltl('lltiotl al <Ill of it-. f:lciiil ie::- \Ihc\'(' elllplo~\'<,' Ilotiet'" an' pO'ited. TIll' Nnlkl'

:-;hall he ]>o<;t('{\ for th\"('l' (3) years an tl ... i... (6) 1110nlh". [n uddition, lkft'ncianl :-.halJ P{I::-t 11

nUli('(' of aII ;lppli('ahk l'quall'l\lpl()~ men I oppOl"tllnil~ 1;]\\ ... and all othl'l" notlee:-. required

hy lall. In the l'\'('n \ Ihat atl~ of aru rI 'ml'n l im1t'd noti/'t'''; ho. '('nIllC..; deface(L llwf!"cd el1"

olh('1"\1 i:-;e Illatll' unreaduhle. Ddcnd:11l1 shall i mlll l.·<.Hal<,'I~ po:-.I a read;lbk' COP) of :-:uch

notiL"e(:-:) .

I ~

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Filed 04/14/2008 Page 16 of 21
l)ISPt'TE RESO J-,--lTION ,\~D CO:\IPLL\NCE 31. This Court ,,jll ho\'(' 011 nvailohle equitahle powers 10 enforce this Dccrce. incl u din~ inj uIH:thl' relief and imposition of lllondnr;. ;lIltl ot he!" ~:lneli{)n<; lor viniotion of Ill(' Deeret'. :l2. L'poll t\Intiol1llfan,' p(\rt~, thi,., Court m:l~ S('hcdul(' n hrnrinp, for 1111' purpo:-.t' of n'\'it'wing ('ompliilIWl' \\'ith Ihi:-o CnnSt'nt D..:(Tt'...·. Thl:' pa ni('<; shall ('n,gap,c in :'l ,l!.nod fnith effort tn rcsohe an\' disputt' ilS In ('omplial1('(' II ilh this De(:l"('c prior tn H'Ckin~ redell h~ this Court, <lml ~hil1l1lt' I'l'qllirl'd tu ~i\-l' \Hiul'll notil'o.; to l'<I(.;h other tl·tI (10) dUb bcfun..' 1llfJ\'illj!, for such l'l·\-il'w. 3:1 . The Commission, its a.l!..t'n l<.; und cmplo~'{'l'<; shall. IlplHl rcasonablt' prior \lriU('1l notkl' to tht' Dl'f{'nd.mt. h;l\-c till' I,'p,al dp,ht 10 ('111('1' any of Ikfendnnt's faeilitil's :md condut:! an on-sitc illspediurl to CIl~Un..' (:omplia llcl' with Tille \ ' 11 :H1d ;lll~ of the {('!'Ins of this Dcl.'l'l'l' if, attl'r cntry of this. Decl't'c. thC' COllHUissjOti. its u).!,cnts or employel's haw nn ohjccti\'cl~ J'(:ilsonabh: hasis to SlISIWd (<1 rcns.lHwhle suspidon) thaI Defendant mn~ potcnti;ll1~ h:1\'~' \ iolll it'd, ur aro.! then \·iula tin,!!., any t('nll of this nt'('H'C 1)1' prm-isiull of Titl!' \ ' 11. SUdl in~I"I\.'cli\l!l:- nw~, OIl thl' discrctiOll of till' Commission, indudt ' ;lCcC8S to any ;.Ind all uonHllcnh not prokdt'd h~ <ltlorni.'y·dienl prh-ilrJ!,c for the purpos\!s of inspcction and duplil'illion. t'\ p:lrtl' inlc1'\ il'\\" Ill' (.It'posi tions of ('llrr\~nt CnlllloYl't's, inlcn-ic\\"s or dt'po:-oitioll'i of o\\'n...·r..., offiCers n nd d ircl'iOl's. inslx'dinn of II n~ ,!rl'a wit hin t hc (;!('i!ity, ,HId any oth('[" in\l·~ti~<tlor:,> Il'l'illliqu(' 01' pl'()('('dul'c permitted by Titl" \ '11 or tht' Commission's rl'guiut iOIl:-.. The Cornmi~~ion's \\ ritlCII lIuli('(' ~hall SIx-'ci f~ the date and lime of the oll-<.;ill' inspt..'ctioll and Iht' h.l.,i~ for it-. .,u:.picion. 1100\l'\l'r, uudt'l' no dn'llln~taJl(:l':-' shall lilt' ('oIlHlli<.;:-.iol1 lx' I'~'ljuin'd 10 dh'ul~c to Ihe Defendanl Ihroug,h nolit,t., tJr ollwl"wis!', or to an.\llIll' i.' I~1' (Illhl'r th;Jll to tht' Court for in call1t'l'I! rc\'ic\\'). the id('ntit~ of any \\itn('~" or
16

Case 1:06·cv·01320·RDB Document 45-2 Filed 04/14/2008 Page 17 of 21
th(· '>flllrt'(' 01 rim information !!,i\inJ.!, riSl' 10 Iht' rcm,mmblt, su...pkiull, or any ot her infnrm;lthm thllt Iltiv.llt rei t.'ill sut-It itknliti....... {)i' "nu r("('s or that mi~ht ('Um prullliSl' EEOC':imluin . Dl'fo..:nll'Ull ...hall h;l\(' x'Ven ( -) bu ...illl"'" di.)... :'InN St.'f"\'kt, of lilt' Commis....io ll·" \HIllen lIolkc II) '>i.' rn- upon thl' COl1llllis....ion a \\rilh'll slatcmclH nf 311~ ubj(,ctinn... lo th \,.' on-sill' in<;pcctilll1. Tht,.' II 1'1111.'11 ~tah'ment shull slx'('ify L'<Ldl and l" ('I') h:1sis for objection , 111l' fudu al onsis fo r the ohjection, nnd the cx knt to \\hich Ikfrndnn l I. ill p<'rmi t on-sit<· in:-.pcdioll. if il lly ••\fta n'el'i , illl!, tho..: ohj ect ions, oz' in an~ cn .'ut after the time for ~l' njl'l' of ...m'lI uhj<'l'lions has l' ~pifl·d. Ihl' COllllnissinn Illny at ally timC' tn(WC the Court for tI 1ll";Jrlll~ in ileconlalH'v with t ill' pro(\·d un:.. "'l' t (urth ;l l)(l\l' (u r the pllrp()~(' of l'Ompcllin~ lktl'ndant In cuopl.:m tt' in am :1',;p,'t'1 of Ill(' on-silt- i n~f".·("lion undt'r thC' term... 1)( this Ikl·n'{'. ;\t'illll'r Ihl' Cllmmis....iull·S dRhl 10 conduci oll- .. ill' in"'I)I.'t:linns lIur an~ olher prO\ is ion... of this O..'(T l'<.' ...hall be oonstrul'(l 10 limit .lr illlp:'lir in an~ mnillwr an~ other ('OO1l11i..... joll ri~ht til conduct il1n'sli~;l\ions (If Iht.' Ddl'udallt that is pwvidt'1..\ hy 1:.1\\, indudinv., hul nol1illli ll'd to, ill\l:...tiJ.\alin~ chargt's of disni min;llion I1k'<I und..r Titl.., \'II. thl' Equ:l ll'iH ,\('1 (~ EP \~), the' Av.c Discrill1 m:l ti nn in EmploYllll'llt \Ct (~:\nl!:..\~), Title I of Ihl' .\IJwrlt-il ns with [)isahilil iL'!- :\tt, :lIld :ln~ statult' uvcr \\hich tIl(' Con llnj ~jlJ n is ~h 'c n jllri~il't i on ill til\.' rUlure, :.lIld (" (Hldul'lill).\ dit'('clt'" inH·...li).\lItinns ;1IIIhori/('<1 under the EP.\. Ihe .\ D~~ \. and am ftllure sl alute \\'h i('h aul hol'i/.(·s d ir('rll'ci ill\(·stiJ!,iltions.
COL' RT C'OSI'S.,\:--JD ATI'OR~EY FEES
:H. E'ICh parl~ ..,halllk.'al' its 0\\ II t'Ourt ('os!.s and atturtlc'Y"" ("C's.
17

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Fi led 04 /1 4/2008 Page 180f21
lliSCEI.L\ XEOl'S 35, I f a n~' jll'O\'b;iCl!l(s) of thi.... Consen t Dt'lTl'l' is found to hC'l1nhnduL ()n[~' til(' slw('ill r pro\·i"ion(-.) in qm~....tiol1 shall lx.' arr('t:lrd and Ihe othcr Jlr{l\+.;i(JlI~ \\ ill r~' lHn i n in lull force amll'fft'l' \.
]6. The ll'l'Ilb uf the Cotls~.'111 [)l'CI'I'l' :ll'e and shal11><.: hjnd i n~ upon (:1) Dcf('l1dnnl; (h) all 111\''>1.'111 amI fu!llt\, part'IlI" of Et>.IS IIIH()\'n tions, In('; (d all prl'~('nl ;lI\d fulun' suh,'ddiarie... of EMS inno\ :1tions, 1n('.; (d) nil prt'scn! and fulurl' hu-.im'''-,> cnl('rpriSt's of \\hkh a ll) ('u rren! O\\"IlCI' o r Onk~T (If E:-" 15 11l1l0llltio n!o, Inc, \)\\,11:-';1 cunlrolli ll ~ i nl crc~l;
and (d :til prC'!o;cnl and fu ture mnll'rs, ofncc rs, directors, ('mployeNl, independellt
t'(!I1 lract(JI'l-i, l'retli lc)rs, <I)!,I't1 l s, truslees, adminis lr;llors, SIlC('CS.<;ors, n:prt'sl'nlatin.·!', Ill' ",";signs nf Dl'ft'lHlanl. nl'fl'mlanl s hall prm;de a tOp~ /If Ihis nccn,'C In all 1X'l'Sons or (m Illie" thit l sl't'k \n <I('qllil'l' H l'ulllrnliinS!, int Nl.!st i ll l)efC'ndallt, and the Wlltr:ld of sa Il' ..hall requir(' thai \lw pu n.:lw"inS!, 1'it'I".;{)n or cntih h(' Mlbjl'CI In 11ll' prudsions of Ihi... Dl'(,[,l'l'. HOII('wr, nOI\\ilh,"I:lndill~ Ihe fnrc,ll.oin~ prol'i!'iOll'i al (a ) - (c). lhe ncm-m(lnct;lI~ rdwf It'rllI<; of Ih i... l){ont'(' (i,I'.. Icrm" ntlH'r Ihan Ih{)~' ill Par:l,ll.ntphs 14-:!:~) ~ hall nol be hindin,f.\ It]l(llI ,I fulur(' pun:JIll"l'r lI1t'clill,f.\ the f(lllu\lill~ CIJltdi tiolls: (I) lite Jlrospcl'lh~ pur('ha~('r is a Ihird-party unft,btcd In Dl'felldalll and any ('lIlTt'nl 0\\ Ill'!, or clrfieer of J)d~,tldillll; (~) elm aod :lH eurrl' 1I1 (III IW I':- :1I1d o l fil't'rs of Dl'ft'ndanl will no! hl' il d i n~l'l or. nffkcr, or m,ul'l),;t'lllent or :-upclTisol'?o cmploy('c of I Ill.:' Dcfl'm[ant or unrela led Ih ird-par ty purchaser afl('r Ih\! salt, and \1i1J nol OlIn any in ll'ft':-;.t in sllch 1I1l1'{'i:lled Ihird-pnrt:-])tIITh,her ur lIlt' J)cI~ nd:tJlt: (j) an) 11 ntl ",]] turt('111 ()\\'IH!I'S imel offieers nf Defendanl \\ ill 110\ maintain an~ other kind o f r{'bl ioll(o;itip "jib such unrd:'ltcd third-party pUl'dw:.;cr or tIll' Dl'fl.'ndant ulher Iha n ;t o; (l ('oll ~ u1t nn l 01' l1on-nt:lI1aRl'rial/llou-sllp('ryisory employee who is terminable at II ill :llId I\i th 110 :tulhol'il:'o 0 1' Ilm\ ~'r 10 ('onlrn] or dirl'('1 the hu"iIlCs~

Case 1:06·cv·01320·RDB Documenl45·2 Filed 04/1 4/2008 Page 19 of 21

dirt'elm"', nffkt·r... l'mplnYl'Cs or indl'pt.'IUil-nt (.'11111 r:wlnr-..
p'l rl i ~~. \11) mndifiC;l\inns to this iI/;!,fl'l'tn('nt mllst ~ mutually ilJ!,rt:l'<i upon ,lI1d rnt.·murial ill'd in a "l'parall' \\ ritill.g l' i)!,u('d h~ Dl'frndant a nd Ihl' ('ol1llllb,o;,ion,

Trial \ttlWlIl·~.

IT IS ,\(;REED:

E()l •.\I. DI PI.(n \11,_,\'1' OPPO R'l"l-:\ rn CO\11\1ISS10K
RO~,\LJ) S. COOPER
Gent'ral CUlIll:-.d
,JA\IF.s I.EF f)('p\l'~' G('m'ral Couns('l
C\\EN])()I.\t\ YOL~~(; RE.\:\IS
ssotiatl' Gl'Jwral ('Oll IJsl'i
, CQ~~~I ~~t-
I 'p,innal \ lI nnH'.1
E.EOC· Philndl'lpilia Di"lriet om!;\,.,
(indudillp. Baltimorl' ridd Offil'l') Cit, Crc"u'nt Buildinl!,. 3rt! Floor 10 S. Iloward 51. Baltimore, ~lD 2 1::!O I Orfit't'~: (~15) 440-20M
::,,~:~:"i1':j'I~L ~0.2(>OO

E;\IS lN~0\·.\T1 0:\S, I:\C.

Id~L4 Cuh.-k'dU_

P.ITR ICLH Rf.\T I·S.\I·,IGE

r1 -

(Bar ;\0, 14447)

L:I\\ omcc_~ of Pol Crc!'I1a-Sl.lY"AC k

.h...cx:iatc!', LLC'

124 South Street. Suitt· 4 \ 1l1l:1polis, 'In :1 1401 O(fi('(' 4: (410) 263-"'"""79 f':It·...illiil\· II: (-1 10) :.!b:3-7790

. \UNI1{'Y lor OI'('11d[lnl

"",.'.k " -Iu- O(

. ('- /Q{)
.IOSErl F I. KO. III Intli\i alJ~ Jld a., (hnll'r. Prl,.-.icll'n!
il nd ( '.0 of Dcfcnd;1Il1
Dllll'd:o/''}1_i

1'1

Case 1:06-cv-01320-RDB Document 45-2 Filed 04/14/2008 Page 20 of 21
i

OEBR.!\ 1\1. L\\

Iklr, r\(J, 0 43 1:!)

SUIX'f'\'isory Trial \tlf)nH'~
EEOC- Bal timore Field omt't:

Cih ('n'S('l'nt Buildinl!.. 3rt'! Floo r

loSolith 11t)\\;JrdSt rl'l'I

:;::,:~:n'h'~jfi't Raltimorl', \11) 21201
20 Of(kl''': ('110) 209-2~3-1 o"'?'4 7

,/

.-1

/C----' / L _

.~\LD I.. PIIILLIPS Senior Trial _\It nrrll'.\
FEO(' B:,1tlllltJrl' l'il,ld ome. . (,il~ ('n'~'t'nt Ruildinv." :Jru FltMlf
10 South 1100\anl Stl'l'l'I IJallimofl·. ~ID 21201 Offin'.: (4 10) ~O')-2-::-3-
h ln,unilt, #: (..po) 9()2-.p-O

Yj-I'# J)all'd:

~f

IT l::i SO OI{I)ERED:

 </s> District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:02 PM

CASREF, CLOSED
U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cv-01320-RDB

EEOC v. EMS Innovations, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Richard D Bennett Referred to: Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey (Settlement) Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 05/23/2006 Date Terminated: 04/15/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Tracy Hudson Spicer Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624623 Fax: 14109624270 Email: tracy.spicer@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 07/20/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Debra Michele Lawrence U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092734 Fax: 14109624270 Email: debra.lawrence@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacqueline H McNair US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 801 Market St Penthouse Ste 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 12154402670

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120004319691802-L_567_0-1

Page 1 of 6

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)
V. Defendant EMS Innovations, Inc.

4/22/08 3:02 PM
Fax: 12154402674 Email: jacqueline.mcnair@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald Lynn Phillips Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092737 Fax: 14109624270 Email: ronald.phillips@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Patricia Ann Cresta Savage Law Office of Patricia Cresta Savage 124 South St Ste 4 Annapolis, MD 21401 14102637779 Fax: 14102637790 Email: pat@pcslaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/23/2006
05/23/2006 05/24/2006 05/25/2006 05/30/2006 05/31/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against EMS Innovations, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0000000000.), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ljs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
Jury Trial Demand by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (ljs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
2 Summons Issued 20 days as to EMS Innovations, Inc.. (ljs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
3 REQUEST FOR ENTRY of Appearance by Ronald L Phillips on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Patricia Ann Cresta Savage on behalf of EMS Innovations, Inc. (Cresta Savage, Patricia) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
5 REQUEST for ENTRY of Appearance by Jacqueline H McNair on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eg, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 6/1/06 (eg,

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120004319691802-L_567_0-1

Page 2 of 6

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:02 PM

07/06/2006
07/06/2006 07/19/2006 07/20/2006 07/20/2006
07/24/2006
07/25/2006 08/20/2006 08/20/2006
02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/26/2007 03/23/2007

Deputy Clerk). Modified on 6/1/2006 (eg, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 06/01/2006)
6 MOTION to Dismiss by EMS Innovations, Inc.. Responses due by 7/24/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Attachment #1. List of Employees for 2003# 3 Attachment #2. List of Employees for 2004# 4 Attachment #3. List of Employees for 2005)(Cresta Savage, Patricia) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
Set Answer Deadlines: EMS Innovations, Inc. answer due 7/25/2006. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EMS Innovations, Inc. served on 6/30/2006, answer due 7/25/2006. (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
8 NOTICE to Substitute Attorney (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
9 RESPONSE in Opposition re 6 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 8/3/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 9 Response in Opposition to Motion, by EMS Innovations, Inc.. Responses due by 8/10/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cresta Savage, Patricia) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
11 Paperless ORDER granting 10 Defendant's unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. Reply due 8/21/2006. (Bennett, Richard) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
12 (FILED IN ERROR) RESPONSE re 9 Response in Opposition to Motion, to Dismiss filed by EMS Innovations, Inc.. (Cresta Savage, Patricia) Modified on 8/21/2006 (eg, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 08/20/2006)
13 RESPONSE re 12 Response filed by EMS Innovations, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order# 2 Affidavit Affidavit of Jerome Jacobs# 3 Affidavit Affidavit of Joseph Ferko# 4 Affidavit Affidavit of Patricia Ferko# 5 Affidavit Affidavit of Walter Connell# 6 Exhibit Public Document: Trussville EMS Website# 7 Exhibit DECA Certificate# 8 Exhibit Press Release, EEOC 05/23/2006)(Cresta Savage, Patricia) (Entered: 08/20/2006)
14 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 2/12/07. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
15 ORDER denying 6 Motion of Defendant to Dismiss; Plaintiff if GRANTED leave to file an Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 2/12/07. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
16 AMENDED COMPLAINT against EMS Innovations, Inc., filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Local Rule 103(6)(c) copy identifying amendments)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
17 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 Amended

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120004319691802-L_567_0-1

Page 3 of 6

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:02 PM

03/26/2007 03/30/2007 04/02/2007 04/11/2007 04/12/2007 04/13/2007 04/16/2007 04/18/2007 05/07/2007 05/16/2007 05/25/2007
06/01/2007 06/22/2007 07/09/2007
07/09/2007

Complaint by EMS Innovations, Inc..Responses due by 4/9/2007 (Cresta Savage, Patricia) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
18 ORDER granting 17 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 3/26/07. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
19 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by EMS Innovations, Inc..(Cresta Savage, Patricia) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
20 SCHEDULING ORDER:. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 3/30/07. (Attachments: # 1 Scheduling Order) (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
21 Settlement Conference - requesting (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
22 MARGINAL ORDER GRANTING 21 Request. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 4/12/07. (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
23 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey for Settlement. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 4/13/07 (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
24 LETTER ORDER SCHEDULING Settlement Conference.. Signed by Judge Susan K. Gauvey on 4/16/07. (Attachments: # 1 mediation)(eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
25 LETTER ORDER RESCHEDULING the Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Susan K. Gauvey on 4/18/07. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
26 MOTION to Seal the Record by EMS Innovations, Inc.. Responses due by 5/24/2007 (Cresta Savage, Patricia) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
27 RESPONSE in Opposition re 26 MOTION to Seal the Record filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Replies due by 5/30/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
28 RESPONSE in Support re 26 MOTION to Seal the Record filed by EMS Innovations, Inc..Replies due by 6/8/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Joe Ferko# 2 Exhibit Press Release# 3 Exhibit Paula Bathras note to Joe)(Cresta Savage, Patricia) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
29 ORDER denying 26 Motion to Seal the Record. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 5/31/007. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
30 MOTION to Dismiss by EMS Innovations, Inc.. Responses due by 7/9/2007 (Cresta Savage, Patricia) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
31 RESPONSE in Opposition re 30 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Replies due by 7/23/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
Telephone Settlement Conference held on 7/9/2007 before Judge Susan K. Gauvey.

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120004319691802-L_567_0-1

Page 4 of 6

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:02 PM

07/11/2007 07/23/2007 08/03/2007
08/08/2007
08/09/2007 09/14/2007
09/20/2007 01/03/2008 01/03/2008 01/04/2008 01/11/2008 01/14/2008 01/17/2008 03/11/2008

(mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
32 ORDER CONFIRMING that the Settlement Conference is hereby POSTPONED until the trial judge rules on the pending Motion to Dismiss as therein set forth. Signed by Judge Susan K. Gauvey on 7/11/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
33 REPLY to Response to Motion re 30 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by EMS Innovations, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Jerome Jacobs, CPA)(Cresta Savage, Patricia) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
34 MOTION for Sanctions Regarding Defendant EMS Innovations, Inc.'s Second Motion to Dismiss by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 8/20/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
35 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 34 MOTION for Sanctions Regarding Defendant EMS Innovations, Inc.'s Second Motion to Dismiss by EMS Innovations, Inc.. Responses due by 8/27/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Copy of Emails from EEOC to Defense)(Cresta Savage, Patricia) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
36 ORDER granting 35 Motion of Defendant for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 8/9/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
37 RESPONSE in Opposition re 34 MOTION for Sanctions Regarding Defendant EMS Innovations, Inc.'s Second Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by EMS Innovations, Inc..Replies due by 9/28/2007. (Cresta Savage, Patricia) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
38 REPLY to Response to Motion re 34 MOTION for Sanctions Regarding Defendant EMS Innovations, Inc.'s Second Motion to Dismiss filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
39 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 1/3/08(cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
40 ORDER denying 34 Motion for Sanctions; denying 30 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 1/3/08(cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
41 ORDER SETTING date for Settlement Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey on 1/4/08(cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
42 Status Report Submitted by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
43 LETTER ORDER SCHEDULING Conference call. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 1/14/08. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
44 ORDER RESCHEDULING the Settlement Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey on 1/16/08. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
Settlement Conference held on 3/11/2008 held before Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/12/2008)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120004319691802-L_567_0-1

Page 5 of 6

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:02 PM

04/14/2008 04/14/2008

45 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Responses due by 5/1/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
46 CONSENT DECREE and APPROVAL. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 4/14/08. (Attachments: # 1 attachment)(eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/15/2008)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

04/22/2008 15:58:45

PACER Login: wu0079

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:06-cv-01320-RDB

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

0.32

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120004319691802-L_567_0-1

Page 6 of 6


[CONTENT] May 2006 | EEOC | Philadelphia District Office | U.S. | District Court | District of Maryland | EMS Innovations, Inc. ||| Title VII ||| EEOC ||| April of 2008 ||| EMS Innovations | 115,000 |||  ||| 3.5 years ||| 2011 [SUMMARY] In May 2006, the EEOC's Philadelphia District Office filed suit in U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, against EMS Innovations, Inc. The suit alleged that the owner of this small business violated Title VII by subjecting his female employees to sexual harassment by making constant sexual advances, arranging for adjoining hotel rooms on business trips and trying to convince the women who worked for him to have an affair, and engaging in other similar behavior that created a hostile work environment for women. 

The defendant moved to dismiss the case twice, once for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and again for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, alleging that the EEOC did not have standing because it had not completed a proper investigation prior to bringing suit. Both motions were denied, and the case ended up being resolved through a consent judgment in April of 2008. EMS Innovations was ordered to pay a total of $115,000 to the women alleging sexual harassment. The company was also required to implement anti-discrimination training for all of its employees, and its owner and supervisory personnel were prohibited from making advances towards female employees.

The terms of the agreement were to run for 3.5 years. The docket sheet does not show any further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2011.