• Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

• . Document 29 , Filed 02/27/2003

Page 1 of 17

1 JEFFER, MANGELS, BUTLER & MARMARO LLP

MARTA M. FERNANDEZ (Bar No. 120540)

FILED

2 REBECCA L. TORREY (Bar No. 153866)

CLERK, US, DISTRICT COURT

2121 Avenue of the Stars, Tenth Floor

3 Los Angeles, California 9006 7-5010 Telephone: (310) 203-8080

Fa 2 7 2fJ03

4 Fax: (310) 203-0567

ceN~L ~TRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OEPUT'I

5
6

;t ys for Defendant
Holdings, Inc.,

,

ENTERED

dba ~ i, (lERtt ,'I.S. DISTRICT COl RT

erly Hilton Hotel

1-v Priority

7

M!7'm PJ,

_Send _Clsd

8

-.->

9

10 ...

CENTRAl DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

fay

DEPUTY

UNITED ST~~5'DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI~

-~~:~ ±Enter

.

JS-e

11 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
12
Plaintiff, 13
vs. 14
THE BEVERLY HILTON, and DOES 15 1-10, Inclusive,

16

Defendants.

17

18

19

20

CASE NO. CV 01-08316 LGB (PJWx)

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER

Date: August 22, 2002

Time: 10 : 00 AM

: .

For Settlement Conference'

By: U.S. Magistrate Judge

Patrick J. Walsh

Judge: Hon. Lourdes G. Baird

Courtroom: 827A

21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PIUNTEDON RECYCLED PAPER

LA 10I 0211 v4

--------

----

• 1 Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW
I

• . Document 29 , Filed 02/27/2003

Page 2 of 17

1

1.

2

INTRODUCTION

3

This is an employment discrimination action brought by th, Ie

4 United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"

5 "Commission") under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

6 1967, as amended;' 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et M., (the "ADEA"), to 7 correct alleged unlawful employment practices on the basis of age

8 and to provide appropriate relief to the Charging Party, Brenda

9 Ngoho ("Ms. Ngoho" or "Charging Party") and a class of similarly

10 situated persons who were age forty (40) or above at the time

11 they applied for and were denied employment with Defendant's

12 Coconut Club restaurant. The Commission alleges that the
I-
13 Defendant failed to hire Ms. Ngoho and a group of similarly', 14 situated persons over age forty (40) on the basis of their ages

15 to work at the Coconut Club, in violation of the ADEA. Defendant

16 denies any wrongdoing.

17

18

II.

19

JURISDICTION

20

The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject

21 matter of this lawsuit. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked

22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345.

23 This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to section 7(b)

24 of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), which incorporates by reference

25 sections l6(c) and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as

26 amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217.

27

The Complaint asserts claims that, if proven, would

28
PRlNTEb ON RECYClED PAPER

authorize the Court to grant the monetary and equitable relief

LA 3010218 ...

-1-

. • Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW
..

Document 29

•Filed 02/27/2003

Page 3 of 17

set forth in this Decree against Defendant. This Decree conforms

2 with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the ADEA and is not

3 in derogation of the rights and privileges of any person. The

4 Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for the duratidn

5 of the Decree for the purpose of entering all orders, judgments,

6 and decrees which may be necessary to implement the relief

7 provided herein.

8

9

III.

10

PURPOSE OF THE CONSENT DECREE

11

The parties have entered into this Decree for the following

12 purposes:

i-

13

A. To avoid the time, risk, and expense of protracte9, .

14 litigation;

15

B. To provide appropriate monetary and equitable relief

16 for all class members;

17

C. To provide an appropriate and effective mechanism for

18 reporting and investigating discrimination in the workplace; and

19

D. To provide a final and binding settlement upon the

20 parties as to all claims alleged in the Complaint filed by the

21 EEOC on behalf of Charging Party Brenda Ngoho and the

22 similarly situated class members in this action.

23

24

IV.

25

NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY

26

This Decree represents the compromise of disputed claims

27 which the parties recognize would require protracted and costly

28
PRJNTEDON RECYCLED PAPER

litigation. The entry into this Decree is not, and may not be

LA 3010218 v4

-2-

---------------------

• .. Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

• . Document 29 . Filed 02/27/2003

Page 4 of 17

1 used, by any person or agency as an admission of wrongdoing by

2 Defendant or as evidence that the Commission has established that

3 Defendant has engaged in discriminatory employment practices.

4 Defendant specifically denies the allegations of the Complaint

5 and by entering into this Decree is not in any way admitting

6 liability in this action.

7

8

V.

9

PARTIES

10

A. Plaintiff

11

Plaintiff the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

12 Commission is an agency of the United States of America charged
13 with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of A,!'-D.EA
14 and is expressly authorized to bring this action under § 7(h) of

15 the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as amended by section 2 of

16 Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781 and by Public

17 Law 98-532 (1984) 98 Stat. 2705.

18

B. Defendant

19

The Defendant in this action is Beverly Holdings, Inc. dba

20 The Beverly Hilton Hotel.

21

22

VI.

23

BENEFICIARIES

24

A. Charging Party

25

The EEOC filed this action after investigating the Charge of

26 Discrimination filed by Charging Party Brenda Ngoho against

27 Defendant.

28

B. Class Members

PRINTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

LA JOIOlll ""

-3-

• Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

.. • Document 29 Filed 02/27/2003

Page 5 of 17

1

The EEOC also sought relief on behalf of a class of alleged

2 similarly situated individuals who: (i) were allegedly denied

3 employment at the Defendant's Coconut Club restaurant on the

4 basis of being over age 40 at the time she or he applied and/or

5 was considered for employment; and (ii) were identified by the

6 EEOC as of the date of the Settlement Conference in this action,

7 August 22, 2002.

8

This Decree and the Releases contained herein are intended

9 to cover and apply to all existing and potential Eligible Class

10 Members, as that term is defined herein.

11

12

VII.

13

DEFINITIONS

, .

14

A. Claim Share - Claim Share refers to the portion of the

15 Class Fund payable to the Charging Party and each Eligible Class

16 Member, as determined by the EEOC in accordance with the terms

17 hereof.

18

B. Class Distribution List - The Class Distribution List

19 is the list of Eligible Class Members who have submitted timely

20 and qualifying claims and Individual Releases (as defined below),

21 and the amount of each such Class Member's Claim Share.

22

C. Class Fund - The sum of $220,000 which is to be paid by

23 Defendant in accordance with the terms hereof in full settlement

24 of all claims for monetary relief to Eligible Class Members.

25

D. Class Liability Period - The Class Liability Period is

26 the date that an opening for the Coconut Club was first posted or

27 otherwis€ publicized, on or about November 15, 1997, through the

28
PRtNTEDON RECYCLED PAPER

date that the Coconut Club closed, July 2, 2001.

LA .roI021f v4

-4-

• Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

Document 29

• Filed 02/27/2003

Page 6 of 17

E. Class Positions - The Class Positions are defined as

2 servers in Defendant's Coconut Club restaurant located at the

3 Beverly Hilton Hotel.

4

F. Date of Final Approval - The Date of Final Approval is

5 the date upon which the Court gives final approval to the Decree

6 after hearing, if required.

7

G. Effective Date of Decree - The Effective Date of this

8 Decree is the date upon which the Court gives final approval to

9 the Decree.

10

H. Eligible Class Members - All persons, including, but

11 not limited to, the Charging Party and the Class Members, who (i)

12 applied and/or were considered for a position with the Coconut
13 Club at Defendant's Beverly Hilton Hotel during the period o",-f.
14 November 15, 1997 through July 2, 2001; (ii) were age 40 or older;

15 and (iii) the Commission has identified as an Eligible Class

16 Member regardless of whether such individual has previously opted

17 out as a Class Member in this litigation. As of August 22, 2002,

18 the date of the Settlement Conference in this matter, the

19 Commission has identified fifteen (15) eligible Class Members

20 after exhausting and completing a search for class members.

21 Therefore, the Commission has agreed that following the date of

22 the Settlement Conference in this matter, August 22, 2002, there

23 will be no fUrther communications of any kind by the Commission

24 soliciting or requesting the participation of any individuals as

25 Class Members in this litigation.

26

I. Initial Eligible Class Members - Those Eligible Class

27 Members who have been identified by the EEOC as of the date of

28
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

the Settlement Conference. The EEOC identified approximately

LA )010218 v4

-5-

• Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

• Document 29 , , Filed 02/27/2003

1 fifteen claimants to draw from the Class Fund.

Page 7 of 17
The amount to be

2 awarded to each claimant is at the sole discretion of the EEOC.

3

J. Subsequent Eligible Class Members - Those Eligible

4 Class Members who are identified by the EEOC subsequent to the

5 Date of Final Approval and prior to the expiration of the three

6 year period set ~orth herein for the distribution of the Class

7 Fund.

8

9

VIII.

10

RELEASE OF CLAIMS

11

A. This Decree fully and completely resolves and releases

12 Defendant from any and all class issues, claims and allegati..o. ns
13 concerning Defendant's alleged discriminatory hiring practi~,e.s at 14 the Coconut Club based upon age or any other protected category.

15 The EEOC will take no further action against Defendant based upon

16 any of the released claims herein or otherwise on the basis of

17 Defendant's hiring practices at the Coconut Club. The EEOC shall

18 take no further action against and hereby does release any and

19 all of Defendant's related and unrelated entities and persons in

20 this action from claims released herein including but not limited

21 to Defendant's predecessors, successors, partners, shareholders,

22 owners, parents, subsidiaries, officers, 'directors, managers,

23 employees, attorneys and agents and specifically including, but

24 not limited to, Mr. Merv Griffin, The Griffin Group" Inc.,

25 Griff tel Management, Inc., The Hilton Hotels Corporation, and

26 their respective affiliates.

27

B. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to alter

28
PRJNTEl> ON RECYCLE!) PAPElI

Defendant's obligations to fully comply with the ADEA.

LA 301021' ""

-6-

• Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

Document 29

•Filed 02/27/2003

Page 8 of 17

C. The parties shall use their best efforts to defend this

2 Decree from any legal challenge whether by appeal, collateral

3 attack or objection.

4

5

IX.

6

NON-DEROGATION OF EEOC RIGHTS

7

Except with respect to those matters expressly settled

8 hereby, this Decree in no way affects the EEOC's rights to

9 proceed against Defendant as provided by law, nor does it in any

10 way affect the EEOC's rights to process charges against Defendant

11 not otherwise covered by this Decree in accordance with EEOC

12 procedures and.to commence civil action on any such charges .. \'-
13

14

X.

15

MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY

16

A. This Decree and its Exhibits constitute the complete

17 understanding of the parties with respect to the matters

18 contained within it. No waiver, modification or amendment of any

19 provision of this Decree will be effective unless made in writing

20 and signed by an authorized representative of each of the

21 parties.

22

B. If one or more provisions of the Decree are rendered

23 unlawful or unenforceable, the parties shall make good faith

24 efforts to agree upon appropriate amendments to this Decree in

25 order to effectuate the purposes of the Decree. If the parties

26 are unable to reach agreement, the Court shall order appropriate

27 alternative provisions in order to effectuate the purposes of the

28
PRlN"TED ON RECYCLED PAPU

Decree. Should one or more provisions of this Decree be deemed

LA 3010211 '"

-7-

• Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

Document 29

• Filed 02/27/2003

Page 9 of 17

unlawful, all other lawful and enforceable provisions will remain

2 in full force and effect.

3

XI.

l'

4

DECREE ENFORCEMENT

5

A. Parties Authorized to Enforce Decree - The EEOC or

6 Defendant may bring an action before this Court to enforce the

7 Decree. The Parties agree to submit any such matter for

8 resolution to Judge Lourdes G. Baird.

9

B. Requirement of Informal Resolution Efforts

10

1. Prior to initiating an action to enforce the

11 Decree, the party bringing the action will notify the other

12 party, in writing, of the nature of the dispute.

..

13 This notice shall specify the particular provision(s) belie~ed to

i·

14 have been breached and a statement of the issues in dispute. The

15 notice may also include a reasonable request for documents or

16 information relevant to the dispute.

17

2. Within fourteen (14) days of the notice, the

18 responding party will provide written responses to the notice

19 setting forth their positions. They will also provide the

20 requested documents or information.

21

3. After receipt of the responses, the parties will

22 schedule a telephone or in-person meeting to attempt to resolve

23 the dispute resolution.

24

4. A thirty (30) day dispute resolution period will

25 be provided from the date of notice prior to the institution of

26 any legal proceeding. After the expiration of the thirty (30)

27 day dispute resolution period, an action to enforce the Decree

28
PR,tNTEDON RECYCLED ~APER

may be brought in this Court.

LA 3010218 "

-8-

• Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

• '. Document 29 Filed 02/27/2003

. Page 10 of 17 "

.

1

5. The moving party's papers shall explain the facts

2 and circumstances that necessitate immediate court action. If a

3 party brings a matter before the Court requiring immediate Court

4 action, the opposing party shall be provided with appropriate'

5 notice under the Local Rules of the Court and the Federal Rules

6 of Civil Procedure.

7

6. The provisions of this section do not prevent

8 either party from bringing an issue before the Court when the

9 facts and circumstances require immediate Court action.

10

11

XII.

12

EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF DECREE

!o-

13

This Decree shall be deemed effective as of the Date of, .

14 Final Approval of this Decree by the Court. The Date of Final

15 Approval means the date upon which the Court approves the Decree.

16 This Decree shall remain in effect for a three (3) year period

17 following the Date of Final Approval.

18

19

XIII.

20

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

21

A. Management Training

22

Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of the Consent

23 Decree, Defendant shall conduct non-discrimination training

24 programs for supervisory, human resources and management

25 personnel responsible for hiring at the Beverly Hilton Hotel,

26 with the participation of Defendant's labor counsel and an EEO

27 consultant to be selected by Defendant from a list provided by

28
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER

the Commission. Such training shall take place in three to four

LA 3010218 v4 .

-9-

.

. • Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

'. Document 29

• Filed 02/27/2003

Page 11 of 17

•

j.

•

1 hour sessions, and the EEO consultant may provide training

2 materials for the sessions. Thereafter, on a bi-annual basis for

3 the duration of the Decree, the Defendant shall conduct

4 subsequent training sessions with the participation of

5 Defendant's labor counsel and the EEO consultant.

6

Within thirty (30) days of completion of each such training

7 session, Defendant shall cause to be delivered to the EEO

8 consultant a certification that such training occurred in

9 accordance with the terms hereof.

10

11

XIV.

12

MONETARY RELIEF

~

13

In settlement of all monetary claims of the Charging P~,r.ty

14 and the Eligible Class Members, Defendant shall pay the

15 following:

16

A. Class Monetary Relief

17

In full settlement of all claims for monetary relief,

18 Defendant shall pay the sum of $220,000 ("Class FUnd") within a

19 period of three years following the Effective Date of Decree.

20

B. Taxes

21

Defendant shall prepare and distribute 1099 tax reporting

22 forms to each Eligible Class Member to whom payment from the

23 Class Fund is made. Each Eligible Class Member shall be solely

24 responsible for payment of her or his share of taxes owed to any

25 governmental authority for her or his individual distributions

26 from the Class Fund, and each shall defend and hold Defendant

27 harmless from any and all tax liabilities or penalties arising

28
PIUNT'EDON RECYCLE!> PAPER

from the non-payment of taxes pertaining to the receipt of Class

LA 3010218 v4

-10-

• Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW 1 Funds.

. Document 29,

• Filed 02/27/2003

Page 12 of 17

•

• >

•

2

~.

3

CLASS FUND DISTRIBUTION

4

A. Eligibility for Class Fund Distribution

5

The EEOC shall identify and solely determine who shall be an

6 Eligible Class Member, subject to the terms set forth herein.

7 The EEOC shall inform Defendant of the identity, social security

8 number and amount to be paid to each Eligible Class Member. To

9 be eligible to participate in the distribution of the Class Fund,

10 an Eligible Class Member must have signed a separate General

11 Release which is mutually agreeable to Defendant and the Eligible

12 Class Member.

13

B. Identification of Individual Claims Shares

, .

14

Within thirty days of the Date of Final Approval, the EEOC

15 shall provide Defendant's counsel at Jeffer, Mangels, Butler &

16 Marmaro ("Defendant's counsel") with computer readable list (s)

17 showing the names, addresses, and social security numbers for all

18 Initial Eligible Class Members and the amounts payable to each.

19 Thereafter, the EEOC shall provide such information to

20 Defendant's counsel with respect to, and within one hundred

21 twenty (120) days after its identification of, any Subsequent

22 Eligible Class Members.

23

Defendant agrees that it shall, within fourteen (14) days

24 after its counsel's receipt of notification identifying the

25 amount of the Class Fund payment to any Initial Eligible Class

26 Member and Subsequent Eligible Class Member, and receipt of the

27 executed General Release, whichever is later, pay the amount(s)

28
PRlNTEI>ON RECYClED PAPER

identified therein to such person(s). Copies of the checks and

LA JOlom v4

-11:

. • Cas'e 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

• Document 2'9.

Filed 02/27/2003
"

. . Page 13 of 17 '.

1 cover letters sent to Initial Eligible and Subsequent Eligible

2 Class Members shall be concurrently mailed to the EEOC.

3

The EEOC shall deliver to Defendant's counsel no less

4 frequently than once per month a copy of the Class Distribution

5 List then in effect, reflecting all known Eligible Class Members

6 and all payments made by Defendant as of such date in accordance

7 with the terms hereof until the Class Fund is depleted or, if

8 earlier, expiration of the three year period set forth herein.

9

c. Distribution of Unclaimed Portion of Class Payment

10

All portions of the Class Fund that are undistributed by the

11 end of the three year term of this Decree shall be anonymously

12 donated to ChildHelp USA ("Wickenburg Village"),a charitable

13 organization.
i.
14

15

XVI.

16

ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS

17

Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs in

18 connection herewith, except that Defendant shall bear the costs

19 for the hiring of the EEO consultant and the administration and

20 payment of claims to all Eligible and Subsequent Eligible Class

21 Members.

22

23

XVII.

24

PRESS RELEASE/PUBLICITY

25

The parties have agreed to issue a positive Joint Press

26 Release, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." The Parties will make

27 best efforts such that any further public communications about this·

28
PRlNT£DON RECYCLED PAPER

matter are favorable, consistent with the Joint Press Release,

LA 3010218 v4

-12-

• . . Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

• Document 29'.

Filed 02/27/2003
'.

. . Page 14 of 17 ;.

while recognizing that the parties cannot strictly control press

2 coverage.

3

XVIII.

4

FAXED SIGNATURES

5

For the purposes of this Stipulation, a faxed signature will

6 have the same force and effect as a signature penned in ink.

7

8 DATED: December~, 2002 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

9

ANNA PARK

SUE NOH

10

DAN I T A

11

12
Empl~yment
13
, .
14

15 DATED: ...eet:ernber , 2002- BEVERLY HOLDINGS, INC.

16

(J;ttIMy 18, ZDo)

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24

r ITISS~RfD

Dated -

0y •

..76 ..,

25

Q~

oL.-"C'o!f$

26

Umted States District JUdge

27

28
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PA.PER

LA ,010211 v4

-13 -

Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW Document 29 Filed 02/27/2003 Page 15 of 17

. .. "

•

.. ". '

•

. '. .

. . • Cas'e. 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

.. Document 29

• Filed 02/27/2003

. Page 16 of 17 "

"

EXHIBIT "A"

For Immediate Release [insert date of release]

CONTACT: For EEOC Anna Y. Park (213) 894-1080 Olophius Perry (213) 894-1112 TTY: (213) 894-1118

EEOC AND THE BEVERLY HILTON HOTEL SETTLE ALLEGATIONS OF AGE DISCRIMINATION
*****************.*******

LOS ANGELES·The U.S. Equal Employment Opponunity Commission

; .

(EEOC) and Beverly Holdings, Inc. announced today that they settled an age discrimination

lawsuit against Beverly Holdings, Inc. focusing on the hiring practices at the Coconut Club. a

supper club formerly located at the Beverly Hilton Hotel, which Beverly Holdings owns and

operates.

Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree in U.S. EEOC v. The Beverly Hilton Hotel in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Hotel has agreed to compensate certain applicants who were age 40 or older and who were not hired for employment at the Coconut Club. The terms of the agreement include a monetary settlement in the amount of $220,000 to be distributed to approximately 15 applicants identified by the EEOC who allegedly suffered age discrimination, out of the approximately 3,000 applicants contacted by the EEOC during its investigation. The Beverly Hilton Hotel has agreed to implement more extensive human resources training programs for its managers in cooperation with its labor counsel, Ieffer, Mangles, Butler & Marmaro and an outside consultant.

"The Commission is pleased that the Hotel has agreed to enhance its management training to add specific focus on age diversity in hiring practices, " said Olophius Perry, Director of the EEOC's Los Angeles District Office.

The Beverly Hilton Hotel is the largest employer in Beverly Hills, employing approximately 650 employees constituting a highly diverse workforce with more than 50 % of its employees being over the age of 40. The EEOC commends the Beverly Hilton Hotel for its achievements in workforce diversity.

LA 30174S1 vi

. .

. . • .. Case 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

.. Document 29

• Filed 02/27/2003

Page 17 of 17
"

.

Anna Y. Park, Regional Attorney of the Agency's Los Angeles office, said, "We hope that other employers follow the Beverly Hilton's lead in valuing our older workers . " who have committed their long careers to food service. "

In addition to enforcing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act which prohibits employment discrimination against persons age forty and older on the basis of their age, the EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. which prohibits employment discrimination based upon race, color. religion, sex and national origin. the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available at www.eeoc.gov.

. -

LA 3017451 vl

 </s> 1 Anna Y. Park, State Bar No. 164242

Sue J. Noh, State Bar No. 192134

2 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

.1"'

OPPORTUNITY CQMMISSION

3 255 E. Temple Street, 4th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90~12

/;

4 Telephone: (213) 894-1082

Facsimile: (213) 894il082

5

r

Attorneys for Plaintiff

r

6 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

(

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

7

r'-:~ N

~::. -'~ t.D

8

. .-\

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LGB

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 U.S. EQUAL EMPLQYMENT

) CASE NO. CV '01- 0831'6

P1WX

11 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

) COMPLAINT-

12

Plaintiff,

) CIVIL RIGHTS EMPLOYMENT

) DISCRIMINATION

13

v.

)

) 29 U.S.c. § 621 et~.

14 THE BEVERLY HILTON, and DOES 1- )

10, Inclusive.

) DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

15

)

Defendants.

)

16 - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - . )

17 18 19 20
'Is ~~
120 23
24 25 26 27

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an employment discrimination action brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportullity Commission (the "Commission") under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1~67, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et ~., (the "ADEA"), to correct unlawful employment'practices on the basis of age and to provide appropriate reliefto the Charging Party, Brenda Ngoho ("Ms. Ngoho" or "Charging Party") and a class of similarly situated persons who were age forty (40) or above at the time they applied for and were denied employment with Defendant The Commission alleges that the Defendant failed to hire Ms. Ngoho and a group of similarly situated persons over age forty (40) on the basis of their ages, in violation of the ADEA..

28

...._ ...__ •.

..1

1

,., - - , '.

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. Jurisdiction oftrus Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 451, 1331,

3 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to section 7(b) of the

4 ADEA, 29 U.S.c. § 626(b), which incorporates by reference sections 16(c) and 17 of the Fair

5 Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217.

6

2. The eJ:11ployment practices alleged herein to be illtlawful were committed within

7 the jurisdiction of the. United States District Court for the Central District of California.

8

PARTIES

9

3. Plaintiff Commission is an agency of the United States of America charged with

10 the administration, interpretation and enforcement of ADEA and is expressly authorized to bring

11 this action under § 7(b) ofthe ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as amended by section 2 of

12 Reorganization Plan No.1 of 1978,92 Stat. 3781 and by Public Law 98-532 (1984) 98 Stat.

13 2705.

14

4. Plaintiff is ignorant ofthe true names and capacities ofDefendants sued as DOES

15 through 10, inc1usive,herein and therefore Plaintiff sues said Defendants by such fictitious

16 names. Plaintiffreserves the right to amend the complaint to nante the DOE defendants

17 individually or corporately as they become known. Plaintiff alleges that each of the Defendants

18 named as DOES was in some manner responsible for the acts and omissions alleged herein and

19 Plaintiffwill amend the complaint to allege such responsibility when same shall have been

20 ascertained by Plaintiff.

21

5. All of the acts and failures to act alleged herein were duly perfonned by and

22 attributable to all Defe~dants, each acting as a successor, agent, employee or under the direction

23 and control of the others, except as otherwise specifically alleged. Said acts and failures to act

24 were within the scope of such agency and/or employment, and each Defendant participated in,

25 approved and/or ratifi~d the unlawful acts and omissions by other Defendants complained of

26 herein. Whenever and where ever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by a Defendant

27 or Defendants, such allegations and reference shall also be deemed to mean the acts and failures

28 to act of each Defendant acting individually, jointly, and/or severally.

2

\~

1

6. At all relevant times, Defendant The Beverly Hilton, has continuously been doing

2 business in Los Angeles County in the State of California. Defendant The Beverly Hilton has

3 continuously employed twenty (20) or more employees.

4

7. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an

5 indust,ry affecting commerce within the meaning of §§ 2000e-l(b), (g) and (h) and §§ 11 (b), (g),

6 and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(b), (g) and (h).

7

8. Ifis further alleged on information and belief that the unnamed Defendants in the

8 complaint are mere alter egos of Defendant The Beverly Hilton. The remaining Defendants are

9 properly named in this complaint.

10

CONCILIATION

11

9. Prior to institution of this lawsuit, the Commission's representatives attempted to

12 eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance

13 with ADEA through informal methods ofconciliation, conference and persuasion within the

14 meaning of section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).

15

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

16

10. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been fulfilled. More

17 than thirty (30) days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, Ms. Ngoho filed a charge of

18 discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of the ADEA by Defendant The Beverly

19 Hilton. The Commission issued a Letter ofDetermination finding that Ms. Ngoho and other

20 similarly situated persons were not hired because they were ages, forty (40) or above in violation

21 oftheADEA.

22

11. Since at least in or about March 29, 1999, Defendant has engaged in unlawful

23 employment practices at its facility in Beverly Hills, California in violation of the ADEA, 29

24 U.s.C. § 623(a). The unlawful employment practices include Defendant's failure to hire Ms.

25 Ngoho because of her age, then fifty-four (54) years of age and failure to hire other similar

26 situated persons who Were age forty (40) or above at the time they applied for employment with

27 Defendant.

28

12. The effect of the practices complained of above in paragraphs 10 and 11 has been

3

/--.~"\

"

_-) \......

1 to deprive Ms. Ngoho and other similarly situated persons who were age forty (40) or above at

2 the time they applied for and were denied employment with Defendant of equal employment

3 opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect their status as an employee because of their age.

4

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

5 within the meaning of section 7(b) ofthe ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).

6

14. Defendant has acted with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected

7 rights of Ms. Ngoho a.nd the other similarly situated persons who were age forty (40) or above at

8 the time they applied for and were denied employment with Defendant.

9

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

10 caused Ms. Ngoho and the other similarly situated persons who were age forty (40) or above at

11 the time they applied for and were denied employment with Defendant to suffer emotional pain,

12 suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, loss of earnings, and damages,

13 according to proof.

14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

15

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

16

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, and its officers, successors,

17 assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any

18 employment practices which discriminate on the basis of age;

19

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

20 provide equal employment opportunities for persons forty (40) years of age and older, and which

21 eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices;

22

C. Grant ajudgment requiring Defendant to pay Ms. Ngoho and other similarly

23 situated persons who were over age forty (40) when they applied and were denied employment

24 by Defendant appropriate back pay, front pay and benefits in an amount to be determined at trial,

25 an equal sum as liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest on the lost pay and benefits;

26

D. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Ngoho and other similarly situated persons

27 who were over age forty (40) when they applied and were denied employment by Defendant by

28 providing affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful practices including,

4

1 but not limited to, payment affront pay to Ms. Ngoho and/or rightful place employment;

2

E. Order Defendant to pay Ms. Ngoho and other similarly situated persons who were

3 over age forty (40) when they applied and were denied employment by Defendant punitive

4 damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

5

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

6 interest;

7

G.

Award the Commission its costs in this action.

8

JURY DEMAND

9

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

10
11 Date: J I;;f--lo {(J ~

Respectfully Submitted By:

12

GWENDOLYN REAMS,

Deputy General Counsel

13

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

14

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

1801 ilL" Street, N.W.

15

Washington,

16

17

18

SUEJ.NOH,

19

Trial Attorney

20

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

21

255 E. Temple Street, 4th Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90012

22

23

24

25

26

27
28

5

 </s> CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 1 of 5

(PJWx), CLOSED
U.S. District Court CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division - Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:01-cv-08316-LGB-PJW

U S Equal Employ Opp v. Beverly Hilton, et al Assigned to: Judge Lourdes G. Baird Referred to: Discovery Patrick J. Walsh Demand: $0 Cause: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

Date Filed: 09/26/2001 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Anna Y Park US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Los Angeles District Office 255 E Temple St, 4th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-894-1000 Email: thomas.profit@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samantha E Blake US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Los Angeles District Office 255 E Temple St, 4th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-894-1000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sue J Noh US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Los Angeles District Office 255 E Temple St, 4th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-894-1000 Fax: 213-894-1301 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?736180724583402-L_923_0-1

4/17/2007

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 2 of 5

The Beverly Hilton
Defendant Does 1-10, Inclusive

represented by Rebecca L Torrey Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90067-5010 310-203-8080 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/26/2001 09/26/2001 11/05/2001 11/30/2001 11/30/2001 12/19/2001
12/21/2001
01/18/2002 02/13/2002 02/20/2002

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed Summons(es) issued referred to Discovery Patrick J. Walsh. Demand for trial by jury. (ca) (Entered: 09/28/2001)

2 CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES filed by plaintiff U S Equal Employ Opp (ca) (Entered: 09/28/2001)

3 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by defendant Beverly Hilton sent by plf on 10/19/01 (bg) (Entered: 11/06/2001)

4 CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES filed by defendant Beverly Holdings Inc dba Beverly Hilton Hotel (bg) Modified on 12/04/2001 (Entered: 12/04/2001)

5 ANSWER filed by defendant Beverly Holdings Inc dba Beverly Hilton Hotel to complaint [1-1] (bg) Modified on 12/04/2001 (Entered: 12/04/2001)

6 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Lourdes G. Baird ; mandatory status/scheduling conf set for 9:00 2/11/02 Parties planning meeting pursuant to Rule 26(f) by nlt 1/22/02 (bg) (Entered: 12/20/2001)

7 STIPULATION and ORDER by Discovery Patrick J. Walsh re protective order . The ptys enter into the fol agreement to govern the use & dissemination of Dft's IRS Form 8027s for the years 1998-2000 for purposes of sttlmnt discussions re this mtr. By entering into this stip proto, neither pty waives any right to raise any evidentiary or procedural objections or clms of privilege or lack thereof by the other pty at any subsequent time in this proceeding (see doc for fur details). (mch) (Entered: 12/26/2001)

8 JOINT RULE 26 DISCOVERY PLAN filed; est length of trial 16 days (bg) (Entered: 01/22/2002)

9 MINUTES: scheduling conference by telephone conference set on 4:00 2/20/02 by Judge Lourdes G. Baird CR: N/P (bg) (Entered: 02/13/2002)

10 ORDER RE CIVIL COURT TRIAL by Judge Lourdes G. Baird ;

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?736180724583402-L_923_0-1

4/17/2007

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 3 of 5

02/20/2002 02/20/2002 03/08/2002 03/08/2002 06/19/2002 07/31/2002 08/12/2002 08/13/2002
08/15/2002 08/15/2002 08/21/2002 08/22/2002

discovery ddl set on 3/14/02 ; Final Pretrial Conference set for 9:00 6/2/03 ; telephone conference set on 9/10/02 ; trial set on 8:30 6/17/03 cut off date for filing motions 6/17/03 @ 8:30am (bg) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
11 MINUTES: mandatory status/scheduling conference held DCO 3/14/03; Last day to file motions 4/1/03; PTC 6/2/03 @ 9:00am; C/T 8:30am on 6/17/03; Crt ords a telephone conference call on 9/10/02 @ 5:15pm by Judge Lourdes G. Baird CR: Sharon Seffens (bg) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
12 NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION of Counsel for plaintiff U S Equal Employ Opp by attorney Samantha E Blake (bg) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
13 MINUTES: referring Rule 16-14 settlement conference to Discovery Patrick J. Walsh Cns will be notified by Mag Judge Walsh re place, time & rules, if any, for the settlement conference by Judge Lourdes G. Baird CR: N/P (bg) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
14 NOTICE AND REQUEST Of Settlement Procedure Selection fld Parties request to apr before Discovery Patrick J. Walsh for sttlmnt procdgs Order by Judge Lourdes G. Baird granting settlement procedure selection request [14-1] (bg) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
15 MINUTES: (In Chambers) settlement conference 10:00 8/22/02; sttlmnt conf stmts NLT three (3) cal days bef the conf by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh CR: None (rrey) (Entered: 06/20/2002)
16 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff U S Equal Employ Opp to amend complaint , or alt to extension of time to join parties and amend the pleadings motion hearing set for 10:00 8/26/02 Lodged prop ord & 1st A/C (bg) (Entered: 08/01/2002)
17 Memo of PA in OPPOSITION by defendant Beverly Hilton to motion to amend complaint [16-1], motion to extension of time to join parties and amend the pleadings [16-2] (bg) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
20 MINUTES: striking motion to amend complaint [16-1], ext of time to join parties and amend the pleadings [16-2]; the Crt hereby exts the ddl to amd the pleadings or add ptys to 9/20/02; all other ddls remain th same; the Crt vac the hrg ntc for 8/26/02 (see doc for fur details) by Judge Lourdes G. Baird CR: None (cc cnsl) (rrey) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
18 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff U S Equal Employ Opp to compel dft to respond to plf's second set of interrogatories motion hearing set for 10:00 9/5/02 Lodged order (bg) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
19 Joint stipulation to motion to compel dft to respond to plf's second set of interrogatories [18-1] (bg) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
21 Supplemental brief in support of the joint stipulation by plaintiff U S Equal Employ Opp of re motion to compel dft to respond to plf's second set of interrogatories [18-1] (bg) (Entered: 08/22/2002)
22 Supplemental DECLARATION in support of the joint stipulation by

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?736180724583402-L_923_0-1

4/17/2007

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 4 of 5

08/22/2002
08/29/2002 09/03/2002 10/16/2002 10/16/2002 11/12/2002 12/10/2002 12/10/2002 12/10/2002 02/27/2003

defendant Beverly Hilton re motion to compel dft to respond to plf's second set of interrogatories [18-1] (bg) (Entered: 08/23/2002)
23 MINUTES: settlement conference held The case was settled. Relevant terms & conditions of the settlement were placed on the record. The parties have agreed that some form of a release will be signed by the plfs, with the terms to be solidified later by Discovery Patrick J. Walsh CR: 02-56(4093-end & (bg) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
24 MINUTES: telephone conference re settlement set on 5:00 12/10/02 by Judge Lourdes G. Baird CR: N/P (bg) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
25 NOTICE OF CHANGE Of Address filed by atty Rebecca L Torrey for defendant Beverly Hilton; 1900 Ave of the Stars, 7th Flr; Los Angeles CA 90067 (rrey) (Entered: 09/05/2002)
26 RECEIPT OF TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 8/22/02 (Re:) CR: Toni Hudson. (ghap) Modified on 10/17/2002 (Entered: 10/17/2002)
TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 8/22/02. (ghap) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
27 STANDING ORDER by Judge Lourdes G. Baird. Read this order carefully. It controls the case unless otherwise ordered by the court (bg) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED proposed order re EEOC's motion to amend complaint or in the alternative motion for extension of time to join parties and amend the pleadings (bg) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED first amended complaint - civil rights employment discrimination (bg) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
28 MINUTES: telephone conference re status of settlement set on 5:00 2/26/03 by Judge Lourdes G. Baird CR: None Present (bg) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
29 CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER by Judge Lourdes G. Baird. The court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this lawsuit. This decree represents the compromise of disputed claims which the parties recognize would require protracted and costly litigation. The sum of $220,000 which is to be paid by defendant in accordance with the terms hereof in full settlement of all claims for monetary relief to eligible class members. The effective date of this decree is the date upon which the court gives final approval to the decree. This decree fully and completely resolves and releases defendant from any and all class issues, claims and allegations concerning defendant's alleged discriminatory hiring practices at the Coconut Club based upon age or any other protected category. In settlement of all monetary claims of the charging party and the eligible class members, defendant shall pay the following: In full settlement of all claims for monetary relief, defendant shall pay the sum of $220,000 within a period of three years following the effective

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?736180724583402-L_923_0-1

4/17/2007

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 5 of 5

date of decree. Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs, except that defendant shall bear the costs for the hiring of the EEO consultant and the administration and payment of claims to all eligible and subsequent eligible class members terminating case (MD JS-6) (bg) (Entered: 02/27/2003)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

04/17/2007 20:59:36

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:01-cv-08316-LGBPJW

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

0.24

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?736180724583402-L_923_0-1

4/17/2007

 </s> EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - FEBRUARY 2003

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement02-03.html

EEOC v. Beverly Holdings, Inc., d/b/a The Beverly Hilton Hotel No. CV 01-08316 LGB (C.D. Cal. February 27, 2003)
In this ADEA lawsuit, the Los Angeles District Office alleged that defendant, which owns and operates a luxury hotel, discriminated against applicants over the age of 40 by failing to hire them for server positions in the hotel's "fine dining" restaurant, the Coconut Club, because of their age. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for a total payment of $200,000 to approximately 15 applicants over the age of 40 who were denied hire based on age. The Coconut Club closed in July 2001.

1 of 1

5/29/2007 9:04 AM


[CONTENT] The Los Angeles District Office | EEOC | the Beverley Hilton | Beverley Hills | September 2001 | the U.S. District Court | the Central District | California |||  ||| 40 years of age |||  |||  ||| February of 2003 |||  ||| 220,000 | 40 ||| EEOC ||| the three year [SUMMARY] The Los Angeles District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against the Beverley Hilton, which operates the largest hotel in Beverley Hills, in September 2001, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The suit was based on alleged discrimination of female applicants due to their age.  The hotel was not hiring qualified women to be waitresses at their restaurant because they were over 40 years of age.  There was very little action during the course of this suit.  Finally the case was resolved through a consent decree that was apparently reached through multiple conferences involving the parties.  This consent decree was entered in February of 2003.

The consent decree contained both monetary relief as well as injunctive relief.  The defendant was to pay $220,000 to an undisclosed class of women over 40 who had been adversely affected by the hiring practices of the hotel.  This class was to be determined by the EEOC.  For injunctive relief the consent decree required that the hotel train each of its supervisors, human resource people, and hiring personnel twice a year for the three year life of the consent decree.

