Newton, North Carolina Complaint

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, United States of America, alleges:
1. This action is brought on behalf of the United States to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII").
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the action under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1345.
3. Defendant Newton, North Carolina (hereinafter referred to as "Newton" or "the City") is a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina created pursuant to North Carolina law.
4. Defendant Newton is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e(a), and an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e(b).
5. Defendant Newton has discriminated against Donald Stokley, a white male formerly employed as a sanitation worker in the City's Department of Public Works and Utilities, because of his race, white, and his association with a black person, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a), among other ways, by:
a. subjecting Mr. Stokley to racial harassment while he was employed in the City's Department of Public Works and Utilities on the basis of his race and his association with a black person;
b. discharging Mr. Stokley from his employment as a sanitation worker on the basis of his race and his association with a black person; and
c. failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discrimination against Mr. Stokley.
6. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") received a timely charge filed by Mr. Stokley (Charge No. 140-97-1556) in which he alleged that Newton discriminated against him on the basis of his race and his association with a black person by subjecting him to racial harassment and then terminating him from his position as a sanitation worker.
7. Pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the charge, found reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Stokley's allegations of discrimination were true, unsuccessfully attempted to achieve through conciliation a

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/newton.htm

8/13/2007

Newton, North Carolina Complaint

Page 2 of 3

voluntary resolution of these matters, and subsequently referred the charge to the Department of Justice.
8. All conditions precedent to the filing of suit have been performed or have occurred.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff United States prays that this Court grant the following relief:
(a) Enjoin the City and its directors, officers, agents, employees, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with the City, as appropriate, from failing or refusing to:
(i) provide sufficient remedial relief to make whole Donald Stokley for the loss he has suffered as a result of the discrimination against him as alleged in this complaint;
(ii) adopt a clear, meaningful, and well- publicized written policy prohibiting racial harassment against any City employee; and
(iii) take other appropriate nondiscriminatory measures to overcome the effects of the discrimination.
(b) Award compensatory damages to Donald Stokley for mental and/or physical injuries incurred as a result of the discrimination against him as alleged in this complaint, pursuant to and within the statutory limitations of Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981a.
The plaintiff prays for such additional relief as justice may require, together with its costs and disbursements in this action.
//
JURY DEMAND
The United States hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981a.
JANET RENO Attorney General By: _________________________________ BILL LANN LEE Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice _________________________________ WILLIAM B. FENTON D.C. Bar Registration No. 414990 CHARLOTTE BURROWS Member N.Y. Bar (no number issued) Attorneys Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 65968 Washington, D.C. 20035-5968

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/newton.htm

8/13/2007

Newton, North Carolina Complaint
_________________________________ MARK T. CALLOWAY United States Attorney Western District of North Carolina

Page 3 of 3

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/newton.htm

8/13/2007

 </s> U.S. v. Newton, North Carolina Consent Decree

Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION Civil Action No. 5:99CV189-V
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, & DONALD R. STOKLEY, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. CITY OF NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant.

CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE CITY OF NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA
This action was brought by the United States of America ("United States") against the City of Newton, North Carolina, ("the City" or "Defendant") to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e,et seq. ("Title VII"), following receipt by the United States Department of Justice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") of EEOC Charge Number 140-97-1556 filed by Donald R. Stokley.
In its Complaint, the United States alleges that the City has discriminated against Mr. Stokley, a male formerly employed as a sanitation worker in the City's Department of Public Works and Utilities, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a), among other ways by:
a. subjecting Mr. Stokley to racial harassment while he was employed in the City's Department of Public Works and Utilities on the basis of his race and his association with a black person;
b. discharging Mr. Stokley from his employment as a sanitation worker on the basis of his race and his association with a black person; and
c. failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discrimination against Mr. Stokley.
The City denies that it has discriminated in any manner against Mr. Stokley in violation of Title VII. Nonetheless, the parties, desiring that this action be settled by an appropriate Consent Decree and without the burden of protracted litigation, agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the parties, and the subject matter of this action, and hereby waive, for the purposes of this Consent Decree only, hearings and findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues, and further agree to the entry of this Consent Decree as final and binding among themselves as to all issues raised in the Complaint filed in this case.
This Consent Decree, being entered with the consent of the parties, shall in no way constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case, nor be construed as an admission by the Defendant or a finding of any wrongdoing or violation of any applicable federal or state law or regulation. This Court has jurisdiction over the action under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1345.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/newtoncd.htm

8/15/2007

U.S. v. Newton, North Carolina Consent Decree

Page 2 of 8

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
For purposes of this Decree, "date of entry of the Decree" shall refer to the date on which the Court approves and signs this Consent Decree as an Order of the Court.
GENERAL RELIEF
1. The City, by and through its officials, agents, employees, successors and all persons in active concert or participation with it in the performance of employment or personnel functions, shall not engage in any act or practice that has the purpose or effect of unlawfully discriminating against any employee because of that employee's race.
2. The City shall not retaliate against or in any respect adversely affect any person because that person has opposed allegedly discriminatory employment policies or practices; filed a charge with the EEOC; or participated in or cooperated with the initiation, investigation, litigation or administration of this case or this Decree.
3. No later than July 15, 2000, the City shall issue and distribute to all current City employees the racial harassment policy statement attached hereto as Appendix A. No later than July 15, 2000, the City Manager shall issue a letter adopting Appendix A as a policy of the City. No later than August 1, 2000, the City shall provide the United States with written confirmation that it has completed issuance and distribution of the racial harassment policy statement.
4. For all future employees, the City shall issue and distribute the policy statement attached hereto as Appendix A within fifteen (15) days of hire. The City shall require all current and future employees to sign and date an acknowledgment of receipt of the Appendix A policy statement when the employee obtains a copy of the policy statement.
5. The City shall post the policy statement in a prominent, conspicuous, centrally-located place commonly used for posting notices (e.g., bulletin boards) in all City buildings and facilities and in the City's administrative offices.
6. Within sixty (60) days of the date of entry of this Decree, the City shall amend its Employee Handbook to include the following language:
HARASSMENT
The City forbids harassment of employees because of age, race, sex, color, religion, disability, national origin, political affiliation and marital status. "Harassment" is defined as behavior that offends an employee. This type of behavior is unacceptable, and even in mild forms such harassment constitutes unsatisfactory job performance and is subject to disciplinary action. More serious instances of harassment will carry more severe penalties, up to and including dismissal.
If an employee believes he or she has been subjected to harassment because of age, race, sex, color, religion, disability, national origin, political affiliation or marital status, that employee may bring a complaint to the attention of any City supervisor or administrator. If the employee contends that the supervisor committed, participated in, or allowed the alleged harassment, then the employee may bring a complaint directly to the attention of the City Manager.
The City has created specific policy statements on sexual and racial harassment. These policy statements

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/newtoncd.htm

8/15/2007

U.S. v. Newton, North Carolina Consent Decree

Page 3 of 8

are posted on City departmental bulletin boards and, in addition, copies are available at employees' request.
7. The City shall forward a copy of the amendment to its Employee Handbook described in Paragraph 6 to the United States within sixty-five (65) days of the date of entry of this Consent Decree.
8. In June of each year following the date of entry of this Consent Decree, the City shall provide mandatory training regarding racial harassment to all City employees.
9. This training shall at a minimum instruct all employees on what acts may constitute racial harassment and the procedures for reporting and investigating complaints of racial. This training also shall instruct all supervisory employees concerning their duty to promptly forward any reports of racial harassment brought to their attention to the individual or individuals responsible for investigating such reports on the City's behalf. During the training, employees shall be provided a copy of the racial harassment policy attached hereto as Appendix A. All City employees shall sign and date an acknowledgment of attendance for any and all training instituted by the City concerning racial harassment.
MONITORING, RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING
10. For the life of this Consent Decree, the City shall maintain the following:
a. all complaints of racial harassment made by City employees and all documents, notes, records, and correspondence relating to such complaints that are in the City's control or possession during the life of this Decree;
b. all notes, records, recordings, transcripts, summaries of interviews, telephone logs, correspondence or other documents describing or relating to investigations of complaints of racial harassment made by any City employee;
c. all notes, records, recordings, transcripts, summaries of interviews, telephone logs, correspondence or other documents concerning, describing or relating to any official determination as to whether discipline should be imposed on any employee as the result of a complaint of racial harassment;
d. all documents signed by City employees in acknowledgment of receipt of the racial harassment policy attached hereto as Appendix A;
e. all documents signed by City employees in acknowledgment of attendance of racial harassment training; and
f. any other documents relating to the subject matter of this Decree within the City's possession or control.
11. On or before June 30th of each year this Decree is in effect, the City shall forward to the United States a compliance report certifying that it has complied with the terms of this Decree and setting forth in detail all steps it has taken in achieving that compliance. At a minimum, the report shall state:
a. Whether the City has distributed the Appendix A policy statement to new employees within 15 days of their hire as provided in paragraph 4 of this Consent Decree, and whether the City has retained signed receipts from these employees acknowledging receipt of that policy statement.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/newtoncd.htm

8/15/2007

U.S. v. Newton, North Carolina Consent Decree

Page 4 of 8

b. Whether the City has posted the Appendix A statement in all City buildings, facilities, and administrative offices as required by paragraph 5, above.
c. Whether the City has conducted mandatory training regarding racial harassment during the most recent reporting period.
The City shall fulfill the reporting requirements contained in this paragraph without waiting for a specific written request from the United States.
12. The City shall make the materials listed in Paragraph 10 of this Decree available to the United States for inspection and copying within thirty days of receiving a written request from the United States for access to such materials.
13. Failure by the Department of Justice to enforce this entire Consent Decree or any provision thereof shall not be construed as a waiver of its right to do so.
SPECIFIC RELIEF
14. Because Donald R. Stokley, through his attorney, has informed the undersigned counsel for the United States that he has reached a separate settlement agreement and release with the City of Newton, resolving all claims raised in his complaint in intervention in this case, the City is not required to provide Mr. Stokley any additional specific relief under the terms of this Decree.
IMPLEMENTATION
15. The United States and the City of Newton shall attempt to resolve informally any disputes that may occur under this Decree. If the United States and the City of Newton are unable to reach agreement within thirty (30) days after informally seeking to resolve a dispute, the issue may be submitted by either party to the Court for resolution.
16. All documents required to be delivered under this Decree to the United States shall be sent to the following address: Charlotte Burrows and Barbara J. Meacham, Trial Attorneys, Employment Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 601 D Street, N.W., Room 4500, Washington, D.C. 20004; telephone (202) 514-3862.
17. All documents required to be delivered under this Decree to the City of Newton, North Carolina, shall be sent to the following address:Teresa Laffon, Personnel Director, City of Newton, P.O. Box 550, Newton, North Carolina 28658.
RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
18. The Clerk's Office is hereby DIRECTED to close this case. However, the Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of resolving disputes or entering any orders or judgments that may be necessary to implement the relief provided herein. Three (3) years after the date of entry of this Decree by the Court, this matter shall be dismissed unless the United States moves, for good cause shown, for its continuation. If such a motion is filed by the United States before the Consent Decree expires, the Decree shall remain in effect while the motion is pending before the Court.
It is so ORDERED, this _____ day of _________________, 2000.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/newtoncd.htm

8/15/2007

U.S. v. Newton, North Carolina Consent Decree
AGREED AND CONSENTED TO:
On behalf of Plaintiff United States of America: ______________________________ WILLIAM B. FENTON CHARLOTTE BURROWS BARBARA J. MEACHAM Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 601 D Street, N.W., Room 4500 Washington, D.C. 20035-65968 (202) 514-3862
On behalf of Defendant City of Newton, North Carolina: ______________________________ PAUL C. LAWRENCE, ESQ. Hedrick Eatman Gardner & Kincheloe, L.L.P. 6302 Fairview Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 (704) 366-1101
______________________________ LARRY PITTS, ESQ. P.O. Box 847 Newton, North Carolina 28658 (828) 466-0032

Page 5 of 8
____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Western District of North Carolina

APPENDIX A CITY OF NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING RACIAL HARASSMENT DATE: [Month and Day], [Year]

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/newtoncd.htm

8/15/2007

U.S. v. Newton, North Carolina Consent Decree

Page 6 of 8

This statement of policy sets forth the policy of the City of Newton ("the City") prohibiting racial harassment in the workplace. This policy is effective immediately and applies to all of the City's employees.
Racial harassment is defined as unwelcome racial comments; use of racial slurs; racial jokes; racially derogatory descriptions of an employee or that employee's family members, friends, or other persons with whom he or she associates; and other verbal or physical conduct of a racial nature when:
(1) tolerating such conduct and/or comments is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; or
(2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or
(3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
Whether alleged conduct constitutes racial harassment is determined on a case by case basis and depends on the totality of the circumstances including the context in which the conduct occurred and the frequency and severity of the conduct. A single incident, if sufficiently severe, may constitute racial harassment.
Attached to this statement of policy is a list of examples of conduct or behavior that may constitute racial harassment if they satisfy the above definition.
Racial harassment in the workplace is illegal and will not be tolerated by the City of Newton. In addition, retaliation against any person who opposes what he or she reasonably believes to be racial harassment, or who cooperates in the investigation of a complaint of racial harassment, is also illegal and will not be tolerated by the City of Newton.
The City Manager, the City Council, its officials, agents and representatives, in recognition of their duty to combat racial harassment in the workplace, are committed to the vigorous enforcement of this policy. Employees who engage in conduct in violation of this policy shall be subject to discipline up to and including dismissal.
Employees are encouraged to bring complaints of racial harassment to the City's attention. A complaint of racial harassment may be brought to the attention of any supervisor or administrator. If the employee believes that the supervisor committed, participated in, or allowed the alleged harassment, then the employee may bring a racial harassment complaint directly to the attention of the City Manager. Complaints of racial harassment will be promptly investigated and decisions will be issued within thirty (30) days unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The performance evaluations of all City employees shall take into account compliance with this policy. In addition, when deciding whether an employee should receive a promotion, award, or other performance-related benefit, the City shall take into account the compliance of the employee with this policy.
Furthermore, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, sex, national origin and religion. It also is unlawful under the Act for an employer to take retaliatory action against any individual for

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/newtoncd.htm

8/15/2007

U.S. v. Newton, North Carolina Consent Decree

Page 7 of 8

opposing employment practices that the individual reasonably believes are prohibited by Title VII or for filing discrimination charges against the employer or assisting in the investigation of such charges. Congress has designated the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") as the federal agency responsible for investigating individual charges of discrimination under Title VII. If an employee believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of Title VII, that employee may contact the nearest EEOC office to find out whether he or she is eligible to file a charge. That office is located at:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charlotte District Office 129 West Trade Street Suite 400 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Telephone: 704-344-6682
Verbal Expressions That May Constitute Racial Harassment
Use of racial slurs that others may find offensive such as:
"Nigger," "coon," "spade," "spook," "Sambo," "Jemima," or "slave" to refer to black persons;
"Spic" or "wetback" to refer to Hispanic persons;
"Cracker" or "whitetrash" to refer to white persons;
"Chink," or "slant-eyes" to refer to Asian persons;
"Half-breed" to refer to persons of mixed racial ancestry;
Unwelcome reference to an adult employee as a "boy" or "girl;"
Racial jokes or stories;
Derogatory comments about a person's racial ancestry or the racial ancestry of his family members or those with whom he or she chooses to associate;
Race-specific, derogatory comments about a person's skin color, hair texture, facial features or other physical characteristics;
Stating that a person must perform certain assignments because of that person's race or racial characteristics;
Stating that a person may not perform certain assignments because he or she belongs to a particular racial group;
Obscene, lewd or sexually explicit comments, jokes or suggestions concerning or focusing on the sexuality or supposed sexual characteristics of a particular racial group.
Conduct That May Constitute Racial Harassment

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/newtoncd.htm

8/15/2007

U.S. v. Newton, North Carolina Consent Decree

Page 8 of 8

Displaying racially derogatory pictures, cartoons, caricatures, or slogans on City property;
Displaying or distributing pamphlets or other printed materials on City property if those materials declare the supremacy or superiority of a particular racial group or specify that any race is inferior to any other;
Drawing or writing racial slurs or graffiti of a racial nature on City property;
Refusing to work with an employee because of that employee's race or the race of a person with whom the employee associates;
Sabotaging or interfering with an employee's work because of that employee's race or the race of a person with whom the employee associates;
Hiding, destroying or otherwise tampering with an employee's work equipment because of that employee's race or the race of a person with whom the employee associates;
Making false reports about an employee's work performance because of that employee's race or the race of a person with whom the employee associates;
Stranding or abandoning a fellow employee on the job because of that employee's race or the race of a person with whom the employee associates.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/newtoncd.htm

8/15/2007

 </s> -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I t FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINAsr[ l::<!o

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:99-CV-189-V

'J,ft

r~J£SVlu~7.:...I

0tv.
.C

,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

.1'-1 1"

J ' "I'

Us

r.'J·?:7

Plaintiff,

..
W.

DD11SSrr.R~:

~OLJRr

v.

ANSWER

.0.

CITY OF NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendant.

NOW COMES the Defendant, CITY OF NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA, by and through its counsel, and hereby responds to the Complaint ofthePlaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as follows:
L It is admitted that the Complaint is brought on behalf ofthe United States. As to all other allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Plaintiffs Complaint, the same are denied.
2. The allegations ofParagraph 2 ofthe Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which a response is not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent a response is required, the allegations of Paragraph 2 are denied,
3. The allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are admitted. 4. The allegations ofParagraph 4 ofthe Plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which a response is not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent a response is required, the allegations of Paragraph 4 are denied. 5. The allegations ofParagraph 5 ofthe Plaintiff s Complaint, and each ofits subparts, constitute conclusions of law to which a response is not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent a response is required, the allegations ofParagraph 5 are denied with strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial.
S:\SHARE\WPC8\PCL\PCL020S.ANS

-

-

6. It is admitted that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") received a timely charge filed by Mr. Stokeley at Charge No. 140-97-1556. As to all other allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Plaintiffs Complaint, the same are denied with strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial.
7. It is admitted that the EEOC investigated the charge by Donald Stokeley. As to the remaining allegations ofParagraph 7 ofthe Plaintiff s Complaint, the same constitute conclusions of law to which a response is not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent a response is required, the allegations of Paragraph 7 are denied.
8. The allegations ofParagraph 8 ofthe Plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which a response is not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent a response is required, the allegations of Paragraph 8 are denied.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(6)) The allegations contained in Plaintiffs Complaint fail to state a cause ofaction upon which relief can be granted, and the same should be dismissed, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTE) At all times the City ofNewton was in compliance with the provisions ofTitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964.

2

S:\SHARE\WPC8'IPCL\PCL0208.ANS

-

-

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (TERMINATION FOR JUST CAUSE)

The City ofNewton appropriately terminated Donald Stokeley for just cause and at no time

discriminated against Donald Stokeley for any reason in violation ofhis civil rights.

Respectfully submitted, this the '3V ILday of-",UJ"",It""L~.:.:.._ c:..hN_______, 1999.

HEDRICK, EATMAN, GARDNER & KINCHELOE, L.L.P.

(J BY:

(

-"J /J . eJ

)
ktMA-h ..

PAUL C. LAWRENCE =

North Carolina State Bar No. 20463

Attorney for Defendant

Post Office Box 30397

Charlotte, North Carolina 28230

(704)366-1101

6y~![4sb Oty,J WP:drZf'ilJfIV
North Carolina State Bar No, 3473 Attorney for Defendant Post Office Box 847 Newton, North Carolina 28658

3

S:\SHARB\WPC8\PCl.\PCL0208.ANS

-

-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that a copy ofthe foregoing document was served upon all counsel ofRecord by depositing a copy ofthe same in an official depository ofthe United States mail in a postage-paid
envelope addressed to:
Charlotte Burrows UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section Post Office Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 Attorney for Plaintiff.
6 ) ) rJDf~
This the _0_ day of_l/iLU:~kl:;lU""M~hk....:J'':::::'''_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _' 1999.
PAUL C, LAWRENCE NC State Bar No. 20463

4

S:\SHARE\WPC8\PCL\Pct..o208.ANS

 </s> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

F r LED
STATESVILLE, N.C.

STATESVILLE DIVISION
APR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and )

DONALD R. STOKLEY,

)

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

)

W. DIST. OF N.C.

Plaintiffs,

) Civil Action No.5:99:CVI89-V

)

vs.

)

)

CITY OF NEWTON, NORTH

)

CAROLINA,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

COMPLAINT OF INTERVENER AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Donald R. Stokley, alleges as follows:

1. This action is brought by Donald R. Stokley as a result ofviolations ofTitie

VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C.§2000e ,et seq

("Title VII").

2. Plaintiff United States of America has brought this action to enforce the

provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

U.S.C.§2000 et seq("Title VII").

3. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)

and 28 U.S.C.§ 1354.

4. Defendant City of Newton, North Carolina (hereinafter referred to as

"Newton" or "the City") is a political subdivision of the State of North

Carolina created pursuant to North Carolina law.

/3

-
5. Defendant Newton is a person within the meaning of42 U.S.C.§ §2000e(a), and an employer within the meaning of42 U.S.C.§2000e(b).
6. Defendant Newton has discriminated against Plaintiff Stokley, a white male formerly employed as a sanitation worker in the City of Newton's Department ofPublic Works and Utilities, because ofhis race, white, and his association with a black person, in violation ofSection 703(a) ofTitie VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§2000e-2(a), among other ways, by: a. Subjecting Plaintiff Donald R. Stokley to racial harassment while he was
employed in the City's Department of Public Works and Utilities on the basis of his race and his association with a black person;
b. discharging Plaintiff Stokley from his employment as a sanitation worker on the basis ofhis race and his association with a black person; and
c. failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discrimination against Plaintiff Stokley.
7. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission("EEOC")received a timely charge filed by Plaintiff Stokley (Charge No. 140-97-1556) in which Plaintiff Stokley alleged that the City of Newton discriminated against him on the basis of his race and his association with a black person by subjecting Stokley to racial harassment and them terminating him from his position as a sanitation worker.
8. Pursuant to §706 ofTitie VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the charge, found reasonable cause to support Plaintiff Stokley's allegations of discrimination,

unsuccessfully attempted to achieve through conciliation a vohmtary resolution of thee matters, and subsequently referred the charge to the Department of Justice. 9. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed or have occurred. 10. As aresult ofthe unlawful and discriminatory acts ofDefendant City ofNewton, Plaintiff Stokley was injured and suffered damages, including lost wages, humiliation, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, including, but not limited to severe emotional distress and physical harm as a result of his having been discharged for unlawful reasons. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Stokley prays that this Court grant him the following relief: (a) Enjoin the City and its directors, officers, agents, employees, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with the City, as appropriate, from failing or refusing to:
i) provide sufficient remedial relief to make whole PlaintiffDonald Stokley for the loss he has suffered as a result ofthe discrimination against him as alleged in this complaint;
ii)adopt a clear, meaningful, and well publicized written policy prohibiting racial harassment against any City employee; and
iii) take other appropriate nondiscriminatory measures to overcome the effect ofthe discrimination. (b) Award compensatory damages to Plaintiff Stokley for mental and\ or physical injuries incurred as a result ofthe discrimination against him as alleged in this complaint, pursuant to and within the statutory limitations of §102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C.§ 1981a.

PlaintiffDonald Stokley prays for such additional relief as justice may require, together with
his costs and reasonable attorney fees in this action.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Stokley hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38
ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure and §102 ofthe Civil Rights Act ofl991, 42 U.S.C.§ 1981 a.
Respectfully submitted, this the 3111 day of April, 2000.
PHYLLIS A. PALMIERI ATTORNEY AT LAW 207 Queen Street Morganton, North Carolina 28655 Tel: (828) 433-1991 Fax: (828) 433-8965
'~~f1.?~
BY: PhJiliSiPllinliefi N.C. Bar 17191
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Phyllis A. Palmieri, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing First Complaint of
Intervener Donald R. Stokley has this day been served on the following, by U.S. Mail, postage
prepaid:
Charlotte Burrows Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice POBox 65968 Washington, D.C. 20035-5968
Mark T. Calloway Clifford C. Marshall Office of the United States Attorney Western District of North Carolina 100 Otis Avenue Asheville, North Carolina 28801

-
Paul C. Lawrence Hedrick Eatman Gardner & Kincheloe, LLP POBOX30397 Charlotte, NC 28230 This the 3rd day ofApril, 2000.
BY:

 </s> CLOSED
U.S. District Court Western District of North Carolina (Statesville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:99-cv-00189-RLV-HM

USA v. City of Newton Assigned to: Richard Voorhees Referred to: Magistrate Judge H. Brent McKnight Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000ra Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 12/08/1999 Date Terminated: 07/06/2000 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff USA

represented by Barbara J. Meacham U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division P. O. Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 (202) 616-9614 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charlotte Burrows U.S. Dept. of Justice P.O. Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 202-307-5769 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Donald R. Stokley

represented by Phyllis A. Palmieri P. O. Box 2812 Morganton, NC 28680 828/433-1991 Fax: 433-8965 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant City of Newton North Carolina
Intervenor Defendant City of Newton
Movant Donald R. Stokley

represented by Larry W. Pitts P. O. Box 847 Newton, NC 28658-0847 (828) 466-0032 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul C. Lawrence Hedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe 6000 Fairview Road Suite 1000 Charlotte, NC 28230 704-366-1101 Fax: 704-366-6181 Email: Plawrence@hedrickeatman.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Larry W. Pitts (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul C. Lawrence (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Phyllis A. Palmieri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/08/1999

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (ssh) (Entered: 12/21/1999)

12/08/1999 12/08/1999 12/27/1999 01/03/2000 01/03/2000 01/10/2000 01/18/2000 01/27/2000
02/09/2000 02/22/2000
03/09/2000 03/13/2000 03/27/2000

SUMMONS(ES) issued for City of Newton (ssh) (Entered: 12/21/1999)
2 CONSENT/REFUSAL to Magistrate Jurisdiction by USA refusal (ssh) (Entered: 12/21/1999)
3 RETURN OF SERVICE Executed as to City of Newton 12/13/99 served with personal service by USM Answer due on 1/2/00 for City of Newton (cbb) (Entered: 01/05/2000)
4 ANSWER to Complaint by City of Newton (Attorneys Paul C. Lawrence, Larry W. Pitts); w/cs (cbb) (Entered: 01/06/2000)
5 CONSENT/REFUSAL to Magistrate Jurisdiction by City of Newton - Consent (cbb) (Entered: 01/06/2000)
7 Certificate of I.A.C. by plaintiff USA, defendant City of Newton cc: HBM (cbb) (Entered: 01/24/2000)
6 MOTION by USA for Barbara J. Meacham to Appear Pro Hac Vice w/cs referred to: Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight cc: HBM (cbb) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
8 ORDER granting [6-1] motion for Barbara J. Meacham to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 1/27/00] cc: attys of record (cbb) (Entered: 01/27/2000)
9 MOTION (with Memo incorporated) to Intervene by Donald R. Stokely w/cs referred to: Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight cc: HBM (cbb) (Entered: 02/09/2000)
10 ORDER, set for IPC at 9:30 3/10/00 before Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 2/23/00] cc: attys of record (cbb) (Entered: 02/23/2000)
Case file sent to Magistrate McKnight's office (cbb) (Entered: 03/09/2000)
11 ORDER granting [9-1] motion to Intervene by Donald R. Stokely ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 3/14/00] cc: attys of record (cbb) (Entered: 03/14/2000)
12 INITIAL PRETRIAL ORDER IPC held 9:30 3/10/00 Discovery deadline is 12/15/00 Motion filing deadline is 1/15/01 Jury trial scheduled nfor 9/10/01 term Report of Mediator due: 7/15/00 ETT: 4 days ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) cc: attys of record (cbb) (Entered: 03/29/2000)

03/27/2000 04/05/2000 04/25/2000 06/08/2000
07/06/2000 07/06/2000 07/31/2000

Deadline updated; set Calendar Call for 10:00 9/10/01 (cbb) (Entered: 03/29/2000)
13 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Donald R. Stokely against City of Newton; jury trial demanded (cbb) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
14 ANSWER by City of Newton to [13-1] intervenor complaint; w/cs (cbb) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
15 JOINT MOTION by USA, City of Newton for Entry of Judgment/consent decree between USA and City of Newton referred to: Judge Richard L. Voorhees (bsw) (Entered: 06/09/2000)
16 CONSENT DECREE by plaintiff USA, defendant City of Newton Judgment Vol: 41 Page: 46 (cbb) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
Case closed (cbb) (Entered: 08/01/2000)
Case file returned to Clerk's office, Statesville (cbb) (Entered: 07/31/2000)


[CONTENT] December 8th, 1999 | the United States Department of Justice | Title VII | 42 | 2000e | the City of Newton | the United States | District Court | the Western District | North Carolina ||| DOJ | Title VII | Department of Public Works | Utilities ||| DOJ ||| Court | April 5, 2000 |||  ||| July 6th, 2000 | Court | Richard L. Voorhees | the United States ||| Decree ||| Court | three years [SUMMARY] On December 8th, 1999, the United States Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., against the City of Newton in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.  The DOJ sought injunctive relief and demanded a trial by jury, alleging that the defendant violated Title VII by discriminating against a white male formerly employed as a sanitation worker in the City's Department of Public Works and Utilities, because of his race, white, and his association with a black person.

The DOJ alleged that the discrimination against the former employee took the form of subjecting him to racial harassment, discharging him from his employment as a sanitation worker and failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discrimination against him.  

His motion for intervention having been granted by the Court, the plaintiff-intervenor alleges similar claims of discrimination in a complaint dated April 5, 2000.

Though the defendant denied the allegations, the parties resolved all issues raised in the complaints amicably.  

On July 6th, 2000, the Court (Richard L. Voorhees) entered a Consent Decree between the United States and the defendant.  The Decree ordered injunctive relief, including the harassment training, monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting.  The Court maintained jurisdiction for three years pursuant to the entry of the decree.

