) Case 2:00-cv-00409)-JES Document 1 Filed 09/28/2000 Page 1 of 6

f IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COVBJ
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLOru6A.~~? 3

FORT MYERS DIVISION

~

rI ,
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,
v.
KRONBERG BAGEL COMPANY D/B/A BAKIN' BAGELS

CIVIL dAC.T'IOtN..N{)O-.LV~ ~09-rIH -J q[)
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

Defendant.
----------------------------~/
NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 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 Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston, and Jackie Speaker and any other similarly

situated females,( hereinafter the "Claimants"), who were adversely affected by such practices. The

Commission alleges that the Claimants were sexually harassed by a co-worker. Further, that the

harassment persisted despite their complaint(s) to the Defendant. As a result of the sexual

harassment and the Defendant's failure to take prompt, remedial action, the employment conditions

ofthe Claimants, were so intolerable that they were forced to resign their positions. As alleged with

greater particularity in paragraph seven below, the Claimants were subjected to unwelcome sexual

comments and physical contact because of their sex which created a hostile work environment.

1

) Case 2:00-cv-00409)-JES Document 1 Filed 09/28/2000 Page 2 of 6
Despite their complaints to Defendant, Defendant failed to take prompt remedial action and thus, they were forced to resign.
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) ofTitle 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 Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division.
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 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Kronberg Bagel Company d/b/a Bakin'Bagels (the "Employer"), has continuously been a Florida corporation doing business in the State ofFlorida and the City of Cape Coral, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
2

) Case 2:00-cv-00409)-JES Document 1 Filed 09/28/2000 Page 3 of 6
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston, and Jackie Speaker filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. On or about August 1999, Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Cape Coral facility, in violation of Section 703(a)(I) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a) which included the following: a) The Claimants were regularly subjected to vulgar language, abusive
behavior and sexual remarks of a personal nature by a co-worker. Moreover, the Claimants were subjected to unwelcome physical sexual contact because oftheir sex which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to affect the terms and conditions oftheir employment and to create an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. The Claimants made it known to their co-worker and management officials ofDefendant that such conduct was unwelcome. Defendant Employer failed to take prompt remedial action when it knew or should have known ofthe sexual harassment. The Defendant is liable for the behavior the Claimants were subjected to during their employment. b) In or about October 1999, the Claimants were forced to resign their positions as cashiers and/or waitresses because the conditions oftheir employment were so intolerable (due to the persistent harassment by
3

) Case 2:00-cv-00409)-JES Document 1 Filed 09/28/2000 Page 4 of 6
their co-worker because of their sex and Defendant's failure to take prompt, remedial action) that a reasonable person subjected to the same or similar conduct would have been compelled to resign. 8. The effect of the practice(s) complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive the Claimants of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex. 9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional. 10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were committed with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights ofthe Claimants
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment and any other employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex. B. Order Defendant Employer, to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer, to make whole the Claimants, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects ofits unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to,
4

) Case 2:00-cv-00409)-JES Document 1 Filed 09/28/2000 Page 5 of 6
reinstatement and/or front pay, restoration ofbenefits and positive future employment references for Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston, and Jackie Speaker.
D. Order Defendant Employer, to make whole the Claimants, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to, out ofpocket losses, medical expenses, job search expenses, and relocation expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer, to make whole the Claimants, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer, to pay the Claimants punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 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.
5

) Case 2:00-cv-00409)-JES Document 1 Filed 09/28/2000 Page 6 of 6
WRY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
C. GREGORY STEWART General Counsel GWENDOLYN REAMS Deputy General Counsel DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney MICHAEL FARRELL Supervisory Trial Attorney (Acting)
~~
PAMELA PRIDE-CHAVIES Trial Attorney Florida Bar No. 0497010 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION MIAMI DISTRICT OFFICE One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2700 Miami, Florida 33131 Tel. (305) 530-6010 Fax (305) 536-4494
6

 </s> Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 16
)

Filed 12/27/2000
)

Page 1 of 5
.....

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICtLeDURl) 7

•

'I

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FT. MYERS DIVISION , . ,

I i. j,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 2:00-409-cv-FtM-29D

VICTORIA BRIGGS and RESAGASTON
Intervenors,
v.
KRONGBERG BAGEL CO. d/b/a BAKIN BAGELS,

~~'1F)0i-0lED. 0(S']
TimET
CLERK, U. S. DISTRICT COURt ' MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FlORIDAD' ;
FT. MYERS, FLORID~ ~ v{ .
-,Ws

Defendant.
------------------------------/

INTERVENORS' COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Victoria Briggs ("Briggs") and Resa Gaston ("Gaston") hereby sue

KRONGBERG BAGEL CO. d/b/a BAKIN BAGELS, (hereinafter "Defendant") and in

support thereof allege as follows:

Nature of the Case This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Fla. Stat., ("FCRA"), to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Intervenors Briggs and Gaston, who were adversely
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:00-cv-0040)9-JES Document 16 Filed 12/27)/2000 Page 2 of 5
affected by such practices. Intervenors Briggs and Gaston allege that a co-worker sexually harassed them and that the harassment persisted despite their complaint(s) to Defendant. As alleged with greater particularity below, Intervenors were subjected to unwelcome sexual comments and physical contact because of their sex, which created a hostile work environment. As a result of the sexual harassment and Defendant's failure to take prompt remedial action, the employment conditions of the Intervenors were so intolerable that they were forced to resign their positions. Intervenors seek back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs and all other relief this court deems just and proper.
Jurisdiction and Venue 1. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §1331. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Briggs' and Gaston's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, as their state law claims are so related to their claims under federal law that they form part of the same case or controversy. 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 Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division.
Parties 3. At all material times, Defendant was a Florida corporation authorized to do business and doing business within the State of Florida. 4. At all material times, Defendant employed at least fifteen employees and was
2

Case 2:00-cv-00409)-JES Document 16 Filed 12/27)/2000 Page 3 of 5
an employer within the meaning of the FCRA and Title VII. S. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), is the
agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, as amended.
6. At all material times, Briggs was a female citizen of the United States and a resident the State of Florida.
7. At all material times, Briggs was an employee of Defendant and was an aggrieved person within the meaning of the FCRA and Title VII.
8. At all material times, Gaston was a female citizen of the United States and a resident the State of Florida.
9. At all material times, Gaston was an employee of Defendant and was an aggrieved person within the meaning of the FCRA and Title VII.
ST ATEMENT OF TITLE VII CLAIMS 10. Intervenors Briggs and Gaston restate and incorporate by reference the allegations set for in paragraph numbers 6 through 10 of the Complaint and Jury Trial Demand filed by the EEOC. 11. Briggs and Gaston have met all conditions precedent and have exhausted all administrative remedies prior to the institution of this action. 12. As a result of the above actions, Briggs and Gaston have had to retain the undersigned law firm to which they are obligated to pay reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
3

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 16
)

Filed 12/27)/2000 Page 4 of 5

Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Briggs and Gaston respectfully request that this Court: A. Intervenors Briggs and Gaston restate and incorporate by reference the allegations set for in paragraphs A through G of the Complaint and Jury Trial Demand filed by the EEOC; B. Award Briggs and Gaston reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
STATEMENT OF FCRA CLAIMS 13. Briggs restates and incorporates by reference the allegations set for in paragraph numbers 6 through 10 of the Complaint and Jury Trial Demand filed by the EEOC. 14. Briggs has met all conditions precedent and exhausted all administrative remedies prior to the institution of this action. I 15. As a result of the above actions, Briggs has had to retain the undersigned law firm to which she are obligated to pay reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Briggs respectfully request that this Court: A. Intervenors Briggs and Gaston restate and incorporate by reference the allegations set for in paragraphs A through G of the Complaint and Jury Trial Demand filed by the EEOC;
I The complaint will be amended to include an FCRA claim for Gaston once her administrative remedies have been exhausted under state law.
4

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 16 Filed 12/27/2000 Page 5 of 5
)
B. Award Briggs her reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
Demand for Jury Trial 16. Briggs and Gaston demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
Kendra D. Presswood Florida Bar No. 0935001 LAW OFFICE OF KENDRA D. PRESSWOOD, P.A. 1806 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, FL 34205 Telephone: (941) 749-6433 Facsimile: (941) 749-5793 ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENORS BRIGGS AND GASTON
5

 </s> Case 2:00-cv-00409-)JES Document 33 Filed 04/23/2)001 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT. MYERS DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 2:00-409-cv-FtM-29DNF

VICTORIA BRIGGS and RESAGASTON
Intervenors,
v.
KRONGBERG BAGEL CO. d/b/a BAKIN BAGELS,
Defendant.

F
61001

I LED
APR 113

p~

9~5J

Date

Time

CLERK, U. S. D!STR!CT CO~RT
MIDDLE D:STRlCT OF rLORIDA ET. MYERS, FLORIDA ~

Loitial:j

INTERVENORS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Victoria Briggs ("Briggs") and Resa Gaston ("Gaston") hereby sue KRONGBERG BAGEL CO. d/b/a BAKIN BAGELS, (hereinafter "Defendant") and in support thereof allege as follows:
Nature of the Case This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. §2000e et. seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Fla. Stat., ("FCRA"), to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Intervenors Briggs and Gaston, who were adversely affected by such practices. Intervenors Briggs and Gaston allege that a co-worker
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:00-cv-00409)-JES Document 33 Filed 04/23/2)001 Page 2 of 5
sexually harassed them and that the harassment persisted despite their complaint(s) and/or Defendant's knowledge of the harassment. As alleged with greater particularity below, Intervenors were subjected to unwelcome sexual comments and physical contact because of their sex, which created a hostile work environment. As a result of the sexual harassment and Defendant's failure to take prompt remedial action, the employment conditions of the Intervenors were so intolerable that they were forced to resign their positions. Intervenors seek back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs and all other relief this court deems just and proper.
Jurisdiction and Venue 1. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §1331. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Briggs' and Gaston's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, as their state law claims are so related to their claims under federal law that they form part of the same case or controversy. 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 Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division.
Parties 3. At all material times, Defendant was a Florida corporation authorized to do business and doing business within the State of Florida. 4. At all material times, Defendant employed at least fifteen employees and was an employer within the meaning of the FCRA and Title VII.
2

Case 2:00-cv-00409-)JES Document 33 Filed 04/23/2)001 Page 3 of 5
5. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, as amended.
6. At all material times, Briggs was a female citizen of the United States and a resident the State of Florida.
7. At all material times, Briggs was an employee of Defendant and was an aggrieved person within the meaning of the FCRA and Title VII.
8. At all material times, Gaston was a female citizen of the United States and a resident the State of Florida.
9. At all material times, Gaston was an employee of Defendant and was an aggrieved person within the meaning of the FCRA and Title VII.
STATEMENT OF TITLE VII CLAIMS 10. Intervenors Briggs and Gaston restate and incorporate by reference the allegations set for in paragraph numbers 6 through 10 of the Complaint and Jury Trial Demand filed by the EEOC. 11. Briggs and Gaston have met all conditions precedent and have exhausted all administrative remedies prior to the institution of this action. 12. As a result of the above actions, Briggs and Gaston have had to retain the undersigned law firm to which they are obligated to pay reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Briggs and Gaston respectfully request that this Court:
3

Case 2:00-cv-00409-)JES Document 33 Filed 04/23/2)001 Page 4 of 5
A. Intervenors Briggs and Gaston restate and incorporate by reference the allegations set for in paragraphs A through G of the Complaint and Jury Trial Demand filed by the EEOC;
B. Award Briggs and Gaston reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
STATEMENT OF FCRA CLAIMS 13. Intervenors Briggs and Gaston restate and incorporates by reference the allegations set for in paragraph numbers 6 through 10 of the Complaint and Jury Trial Demand filed by the EEOC. 14. Briggs and Gaston have met all conditions precedent and exhausted all administrative remedies prior to the institution of this action. 15. As a result of the above actions, Briggs and Gaston had to retain the undersigned law firm to which they are obligated to pay reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Briggs respectfully request that this Court: A. Intervenors Briggs and Gaston restate and incorporate by reference the allegations set for in paragraphs A through G of the Complaint and Jury Trial Demand filed by the EEOC; B. Award Briggs and Gaston reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action and such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
4

Case 2:00-cv-00409-)JES Document 33 Filed 04/23/2)001 Page 5 of 5
Demand for Jury Trial 16. Briggs and Gaston demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted, Kendra D. Presswood Florida Bar No. 0935001
LAW OFFICE OF KENDRA D. PRESSWOOD, P.A.
1806 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, FL 34205 Telephone: (941) 749-6433 Facsimile: (941) 749-5793 ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENORS BRIGGS AND GASTON
5

 </s> Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 59 Filed 08/31/2001 Page 1 of 3

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

~

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 0I AUG 3 r PM 3: 55

FT. MYERS DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

Plaintiff,

-vs-
KRONBERG BAGEL COMPANY D/B/A BAKIN' BAGELS

Case No. 2:00-cv-409-FtM-29DNF

Defendant.

ORDER
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

MOTION:

DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF CHRIS KRONBERG DEPOSITION (Doc. No. 58)

FILED:

August 31, 2001

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") noticed Chris Kronberg for a continued deposition to occur on September 6, 2001. Mr. Kronberg was deposed on August 29,2001, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(2) provides in part as follows:

-1-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 59 Filed 08/31/2001 Page 2 of 3
"Unless otherwise authorized by the court or stipulated by the parties, a deposition is limited to one day of seven hours." The EEOC has not received leave of court to continue this deposition. Therefore, the Motion for Protective Order is due to be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the Clerk is directed to fax this Order to counsel in this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers inFt. Myers, Florida this 31 Sf' day ofAugust, 2001.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Date Printed: 08/31/2001

DF ocI umL eEnt 59 COFiPledY08/31/2001

Page 3 of 3

~ Notice sent to:
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Michael S. Moyles, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
C. Gregory Stewart, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gwendoln Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Pamela Pride-Chavies, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Kendra D. Presswood, Esq. Law Office of Kendra D. Presswood 1806 Manatee Ave. W. Bradenton, FL 34205

 </s> -, Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 70

Filed 09/17/2001 Page 1 of 6

2001 SEP t7 PM I: 51
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. MYERS DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL.
Plaintiff,
-vs-
KRONBERG BAGEL COMPANY D/B/A BAKIN' BAGELS
Defendant.

Case No. 2:00-cv-409-FtM-29DNF

ORDER
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (Doc. No. 42)

FILED:

July 30, 2001

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

-1-

AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)

10

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 70 Filed 09/17/2001 Page 2 of 6
The Plaintiff, the EEOC is requesting that the Defendant Kronberg Bagel Company d/b/a Bakin' Bagels ("Kronberg") be compelled to provide the following information pursuant to a Request for Production of Documents:
Request for Production No.1 Please provide any and all employee rosters, including, but not limited to,
payroll data, for Defendant's employees from January 1, 1997, through the present. Include their names, dates of birth, last known addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, positions, term of employment, and basis for separation.
Request for Production No.2 Please provide any and all documents within your possession, custody or
control which are or have been maintained with respect to the following individuals, including, but not limited to, personnel files, personnel action notices, notes kept by their supervisor(s), disciplinary documents and/or commendations. Include their last known addresses, social security numbers, dates ofbirth, positions, term ofemployment and basis for separation: [a list of 34 names followed this request] Request for Production No.7
Please provide the complete personnel files of John Bent, Ryan Lindemayer, Sean Mukaddam, Robert Nemerovsky, William Noel, John Schulze, John Finger, Bryan Hale, Mike Deblasi, and Chris Kronberg. Kronberg objects to these requests claiming that they exceed the scope of permissible discovery. Kronberg claims that it has provided all individuals that are likely to have discoverable information in its Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures, and that disclosure contained only four of the individuals listed, namely John Finger, Bryan Hale, Mike Deblasi, and Chris Kronberg. These four have been deposed or are set for deposition, and Mr. Finger was interviewed by the Fair Employment Practices Agency and the Plaintiff has the agency's files. Kronberg argues that other than these four individuals, the Plaintiff has not offered any factual basis to believe that other people have any knowledge of the parties' claims or defenses. In an effort to resolve the issues, the Plaintiffagreed to narrow the scope
-2-
AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 70 Filed 09/17/2001 Page 3 of 6
of the requests by requesting that the Defendant provide only the last known addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers for the individuals requested.
"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. .. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(1) Relevancy is broadly construed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, courts have a duty to pare down overbroad discovery requests. Rowlin v. Alabama Dep '{ of Public Safety, 200 F.R.D. 459, 461 (M.D. Ala, 2001) "The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, weighing the value of the material sought against the burden of providing it, discounted by society's interest in furthering the truthseeking function." Id.
In the instant case, the Complaint alleges that the Defendant violated Title VII by permitting sexual harassment at the workplace and failing to take prompt remedial action to correct these unwelcome sexual comments and physical contact which created a hostile work environment. The EEOC represents all similarly situated females employees. To determine the other similarly situated employees, the EEOC must have access to their names, addresses, telephone numbers and social security numbers. In addition, to gain knowledge of anyone who witnessed the alleged unlawful practices, the EEOC is entitled to contact former employees from the Bakin' Bagel, Cape Coral location. The Court finds that the narrowed requests for only the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers and social security numbers is pared down sufficiently. Therefore, the Court finds that the EEOC's Request for Production Nos. 1, 2 and 7 are relevant to the claims and appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
-3-
AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 70 Filed 09/17/2001 Page 4 of 6

It is further ORDERED: The Defendant shall provide the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers of the individuals requested from the Bakin' Bagels, Cape Coral location within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order.

MOTION: MOTION TO QUASH (Doc. No. 46)

FILED:

August 16, 2001

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

No response was filed to this motion, therefore, the Court finds the opposing parties do not object and the Motion to Quash is due to be granted.

'MOTION: DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Doc. No. 47)

FILED:

August 16, 2001

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

The Defendant is requesting that the Court enter an Order which would prohibit the Plaintiff and Intervenors from making inquiries into corporate entities other than Bakin' Bagels in which John

-4-
A072A (Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 70 Filed 09/17/2001 Page 5 of 6

Kronberg has an interest. At the telephone hearing held on August 21, 2001, the Court held that these other corporate entitles were intertwined with Bakin' Bagels in their hiring practices, training, supplies and billing and that there was a nexus between these corporations and Bakin' Bagels. Therefore, the Court permitted discovery as to these other corporations. That ruling applies to this Emergency Motion as well.
,,(/I
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Ft. Myers, Florida this /1 day of September,
2001.

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-5-
A072A (Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Date Printed: 09/17/2001

- DF ocI umL eEnt 70 COFiPledY09/17/2001

Page 6 of 6

Notice sent to:
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Michael S. Moyles, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
C. Gregory Stewart, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gwendoln Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Pamela Pride-Chavies, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Kendra D. Presswood, Esq. Law Office of Kendra D. Presswood 1806 Manatee Ave. W. Bradenton, FL 34205

 </s> Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. MYERS DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL.
Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case No. 2:00-cv-409-FtM-29DNF

KRONBERG BAGEL COMPANY DID/A BAKIN' BAGELS

Defendant.
ORDER

-,'
,
"'-1'
:-1:
f'
-,

-
J...
~.

The Court has reviewed the multitude of discovery motions that were filed in this action, It is

clear from many ofthese motions that the parties should have cooperated to resolve many ofthe issues

that were raised without involving the Court in petty disputes. It is also clear that some of these

motions were filed without a sound legal basis, and were meant to harass the opposing party. In the

future, the Court will consider sanctioning any party who files a motion that lacks a sound basis in law,

or that should have been resolved without court intervention. These comments apply to all parties in

this action.

-1-
\2.C1

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 2 of 16

· MOTION:

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL MORE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. No.8')

FD..ED:

October 1, 2001

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

MOTION: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL MORE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. No. !1-1, 51-2)

FILED:

August 28, 2001

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as moot.

MOTION:

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ENLARGE PERIOD FOR FILING ITS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF AND INTERVENORS' JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF (Doc. No. 68)

Fn..ED: September 13, 2001

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file the memorandum in Opposition to Joint Motion for Extension of Discovery Cutoff dated September 11,2001, separately.

-2-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 3 of 16

MOTION: INTERVENORS~ SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL AND STRIKE DEFENSES (Doe. No. ,o..l~ 60..2)

FILED:

September 7, 2001

THEREON it is ORDERED that the Motion to Compel (60-1) is GRANTED , in part and DENIED in part~ that the Motion to Strike Defenses (Doc. No.
60-2) is DENIED,

Interrogatory No. 11 seeks the following: For every individual employed by Bakin' Bagels in any capacity from January 1, 1997 to present, the individual's last known address and telephone number, sex, date ofbirth, social security number, inclusive dates of employment, job title and reason for leaving if no longer employed. Request for Production No. 42 seeks the following: All documents reflecting the name, last known address and telephone number, sex, date ofbirth and/or social security number ofall individuals who have worked for Defendant within the past five (5) years. The Defendant argues that these requests are too broad. In its September 17, 2001 Order (Doc. 70),
the Court limited the information that the Defendant had to produce to the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers and social security numbers ofpast employees. The Court finds that this information is sufficient to respond to the Intervenors' interrogatories. The Defendant shall have eleven (11) days in which to produce this information.
I The Intervenors quote certain interrogatories and requests for production in their motion, but fail to make any argument regarding these interrogatories and requests for production. The Court will not address the interrogatories and requests for production that lack argument.
-3-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 4 of 16
With respect to Interrogatory No.2 and Request for Production No. 38, the Defendant agreed to remove its objections and provide this information. Therefore, the Motion to Compel is denied as to Interrogatory No.2 and Request for Production No. 38.
Request NO.9 seeks the following: All documents reflecting the relationship between Defendant and John Kronberg including without limitation contracts, agreements, andlor correspondence. Request No. 12 seeks the following: All documents reflecting the relationship between Defendant and Christopher 1. Kronberg including without limitation contracts, agreements, andlor correspondence. The Defendant agreed to produce these documents upon an appropriate protective order being entered. The parties are required to meet to attempt to reach an agreement as to how these documents will be produced including the terms of an appropriate protective order should it be necessary. Request No. 10 seeks the following: All documents reflecting the relationship between Defendant and Peggy Kronberg including without limitation contracts, agreements, andlor correspondence. Request No. 11 seeks the following: All documents reflecting the relationship between Defendant and Mike Krasny including without limitation contracts, agreements, andlor correspondence. The Intervenors did not set forth clearly who Peggy Kronberg and Mike Krasny are and how their relationship to the Defendant is relevant in this case. "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party . .. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(1) At this point, the Court does not have enough
-4-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 5 of 16
information to determine whether these Requests are relevant. Therefore, the Motion to Compel is denied as to these requests.
Request Nos. 21 though 25 seek the following information concerning Christopher J. Kronberg, Scott Anderson, Michael DeBlasi, Bryan Hale, and C. John Kronberg:
All documents concerning alleged poor performance or misconduct, by [the above individuals], including all disciplinary files or other documents reflecting any disciplinary action against [them]. In their Motion, the Intervenors clarify their request as follows: "they seek only information that is directly related to the issues in this case, i. e., whether any of the managers were ever disciplined or rated poorly in performance for failing to prevent or properly respond to the problem of sexual harassment or sex discrimination that ran rampant in Defendant's store." (Motion, p. 16) The Defendant agreed that this limitation would narrow the scope ofthe request and strike a proper balance between revealing personal records and the Intervenors' right to have this information. Therefore, the Court will limit these requests to any documents showing that these individuals were disciplined or rated poorly in performance for failing to prevent or properly respond to the problem of sexual harassment or sex discrimination. In all other respects the Motion to Compel regarding these Requests is denied. Request No. 43 seeks the following: All documents reflecting the Defendant's revenues, expenses, profits, losses and net worth for the years 1997 through the present. The Intervenors claim that this information is relevant to the claim of punitive damages and to the issue of whether the corporate veil was pierced. Concerning the issue of piercing the corporate veil, the Intervenors claim that loaning money to the corporation might pierce the corporate veil. The
-5-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 6 of 16
Intervenors fail to cite any cases which stand for this proposition. The Court will not require financial disclosure based on a theory that is not well supported. The Defendant also argues that it has or will be filing a motion for summary judgment regarding the claim of punitive damages, and ifgranted, the claim for punitive damages would not survive. The Court has determined that this discovery request is premature. Ifthe issue ofpunitive damages survives the dispositive motion, then the Defendant shall provide the requested financial information within fifteen (15) days from the date of that decision. Otherwise the Defendant is not required to provide this information.
The Defendant responded that it has no documents in response to Request No. 68. Therefore, the Motion to Compel is denied as to this request.
The Plaintiff argues that the Court should strike the Defendant's Affirmative Defenses as a remedy for not providing discovery. The Court finds that this remedy is not appropriate. The .Defendant requests fees and costs for having to respond to the instant motion. The Court finds no cause to award fees and costs. Therefore, this issue is denied.

MOTION:

INTERVENORSt AND PLAINTIFF'S JOINT MOTION I
TO COMPEL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENDANTS (Do~. No. 61-1,61-2)

FILED:

September 7, 2001

THEREON itis ORDERED that the Motion to Compel (61-1) is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part, and that the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses . (Doc. 61-2) is DENIED.
The Intervenors and Plaintiffargue that the Defendant alleged in its Fifth, Eighth and Thirteenth
Affirmative Defenses that it promptly investigated the complaints of sexual harassment and took

-6-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 7 of 16
appropriate remedial action. However, during discovery, the Defendant asserted the work-product privilege as to documents involving the investigation conducted by Mary Green, an individual hired by the Defendant. Additionally, in response to the Plaintiff and Intervenors discussion about deposing Mary Green, the Plaintiff and Intervenors claim that Defense Counsel stated that "you will have to litigate that one." The Plaintiffand Intervenors claim that the Defendant should be required to respond to a multitude of requests for production that relate to this investigation, and that John Kronberg should be required to answer questions that were posed at his deposition which he was improperly instructed not to answer.
The Defendant responds that Mary Green's conclusions and assessments are protected by the work-product privilege, and that all other information from her investigation was provided during discovery. The Defendant cites to John Kronberg's deposition in its Response to show the Court that John Kronberg did in fact answer questions regarding the investigation such why Mary Green was chosen, her qualifications, how she conducted the investigation, what files were provided to her, and who she interviewed. John Kronberg also answered questions regarding his actions in response to Mary Green's findings. The only information that the Defendant did not provide was Mary Green's conclusions and assessments. Specifically, the question was "What did she [Mary Green] report back to you?" Mr. Kronberg was instructed not to answer based on the work-product privilege.
The Fifth, Eighth and Thirteenth Affirmative Defenses assert that the Defendant took reasonable care to prevent and correct the sexually harassing behavior, and the Defendant is protected by good faith. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3)2 provides as follows:
2 The work product privilege is not defined as a substantive privilege. Shipes v. BIC Corp., 154 F.R.D. 301,305 n.2 (M.D. Ga. 1994) As such, federal law, not state law, applies.
-7-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 8 of 16
Subject to the provisions ofsubdivision (b)(4) ofthis rule, a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision (b)( 1) of this rule and prepared in anticipation oflitigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery had substantial need ofthe materials in the preparation ofthe party's case and that the party is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.
The work-product privilege is a common law privilege described in detail in Hickman v. Taylor, 329
U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) The privilege is to protect materials prepared in
anticipation oflitigation. McMahon v. Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc., 129 F.R.D. 197, 198 (S.D. Fla.
1989) The privilege extends to documents which were prepared by a party or his representative such
as an agent or an employee working on behalfofthe party and which were prepared with the prospect
of litigation in mind. Joiner v. Hercules, Inc., 169 F.RD. 695, 698 (S.D. Ga., 1996) The work-
product privilege is not absolute, and a party may obtain work-product documents upon a showing of
substantial need. Id. The burden is on the moving party to show that he cannot obtain the substantial
equivalent ofthe requested documents through other efforts such as conducting his own investigation.
Id. Even then, the Court must preclude from discovery "the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions,
or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation." In re
Grand Jury Proceedings, 73 F.R.D. 647, 653 (M.D. Fla. (1977)
In the instant case, the Defendant claims to have investigated the complaints of sexual
harassment and took remedial action. To establish whether the Defendant did investigate and take
remedial action, the Defendant must show only that it hired Mary Green, she investigated the claims,
and that remedial action was taken. The Defendant has permitted discovery into the investigation itself
-8-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 9 of 16
and any remedial action taken. Mary Green's conclusions are not relevant to whether an investigation occurred and the remedial action taken, especially based on the statements by Counsel for the Defense that Mary Green will not testify at trial.
In addition, Mary Green was hired by the Defendant upon learning ofthe potential for litigation and she was working on the behalf of the Defendant. Therefore, the work-product privilege applies to the documents prepared by Mary Green for the Defendant. The Court must then look to the document to determine ifit contains mental impressions or conclusions ofa representative ofthe party. While she was investigating, Mary Green was a representative party of the Defendant and these documents contain her conclusions regarding her investigation. Therefore, the Court grants in part the Motion to Compel, and the Defendant is required to provide all portions ofthe documents prepared by Mary Green which do not include her conclusions regarding the investigation. The Court will deny in part the Motion to Compel as to all parts ofthe documents prepared by Mary Green that contain her conclusions and mental impressions. This ruling applies to all of the document requests. The Court is satisfied that John Kronberg sufficiently answered the questions posed to him at his deposition regarding the investigation.3
The Plaintiff argues that the Court should strike the Defendant's Affirmative Defenses as a remedy for not providing discovery. The Court finds that this remedy is not appropriate.
3 The Court will not address the issue of Mary Green's deposition as it appears that it was never noticed.
-9-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 10 of 16

· MOTION:

I
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF;SNOTICE OF CONTINUATIONOF CHRIS KRONBERGDEPOSITION ORIN THEALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE ONE ADDITIONAL DAY OF DEPOSITION OFCHRISKRONBERG (Dot. No. 62-1,62..2)

FILED: September 10, 2001

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Court has reviewed both party's pleadings. It is clear that Chris Kronberg is a key witness in this action as he was the manager and owner of the Defendant at the time. However, it is also clear that Mr. Kronberg suffers from health problems that may affect a deposition. The Court will permit the EEOC to take an additional four (4) hours of deposition ofMr. Kronberg on a date and time that is convenient to him as well as counsel.

I
· MOTION: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL MENTAL
EXAMINATION (Doc. No. 63) · FILED: September 7,2001
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
The Defendant is requesting that the Intervenor Victoria Briggs submit to a mental examination by Dr. Sylvia F. Carra. The Defendant based this request upon the argument that the EEOC is seeking damages for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life. The

-10-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 11 of 16
Intervenor argued in response that the Defendant has failed to show that the Plaintiff has placed her mental condition "in controversy" as is required under Fed.RCiv.P. 35.
Fed.RCiv.P. 35(a) provides as follows: Order for Examination. When the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of a party or of a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner or to produce for examination the person in the party's custody or legal control. The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the person to be examined and to all parties and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.
Under Fed.RCiv.P. 35, the "defendant must establish that plaintiff's mental condition or physical condition is 'in controversy' and must show 'good cause' for the mental or physical examination(s). This requires an affirmative showing that the mental or physical condition is 'really and genuinely' in controversy and that good cause exists for each particular examination." Ali v. Wang Laboratories, Inc., 162 F.RD. 165 (M.D. Fla., 1995) In requesting mental examination, the defendant must make a "greater showing" than in other types of discovery. Id. The Court must consider the pleadings, the court file, and another information provided to it. An Intervenor's "'mental condition' within the meaning of Rule 35 is not necessarily placed in controversy merely because plaintiffseeks recovery for 'emotional distress.' A person with no 'mental condition' may still suffer emotional distress which is compensable." Id. at 167-168.
The focus in a sexual harassment case is on the defendant's activities and not on the perceptions ofthe plaintiff/intervenor or the intervenor's reaction to defendant's conduct. Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. 118 F.RD. 525 (M.D. Fla., 1988) "Ifthe defendant's conduct was sufficiently extreme to violate Title VII, then plaintiff's reaction to or interpretation ofthat conduct is unimportant. If, on
-11-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 12 of 16

the other hand, defendant's conduct did not unreasonably interfere with plaintiff s working

environment, her perception ofdefendant's conduct does not suffice to create a violation ofTitle VII."

Id. at 531, citingJenningsv. D.H.L. Airlines, 101 F.R.D. 549,551 (N.D. Ill., 1984). In Robinson, the

District Court found that this objective standard regarding Title VII cases did not place the plaintiff s

mental condition in controversy. Robinson, 118 F.R.D. 531. The Court found that by permitting

mental examination in Title VII cases where no substantive count involved allegations regarding mental

condition " would endorse mental examinations in every Title VII hostile work environment sexual

harassment case. This result is unacceptable." Id. as 531, citing Vinson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal. 3d

833,840, 740 P.2d 404,409,239 Cal. Rptr. 292, 297 (1987)

The Defendant has not made a sufficient showing to warrant a mental examination of Victoria

Briggs. The Court finds that Victoria Briggs mental condition is not "in controversy" in this action.

Therefore, the Court will not require that Ms. Briggs submit to a mental examination.

MOTION: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL MENTAL I
EXAMINAnON (Doc. No. 66)

FD..ED:

September 7, 2001

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as moot. It appears that this motion is a duplicate of (Doe. 63).

-12-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 13 of 16
MOTION: DEFENDANTtS MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLETE DAMAGES DISCLOSURES (Doc. No. 64)
FILED! September 7, 2001
mEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
The EEOC and the Intervenors provided damage disclosures for compensatory and punitive damages as the statutory maximums without listing a specific dollar amount. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffand Intervenors should be required pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 26(a)(1 )(C) to disclose a specific dollar amount for these items ofdamage. The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffand Intervenors damage disclosures for Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages and finds them insufficient. Therefore, the EEOC and the Intervenors shall provide reasonable estimates for Compensatory and Punitive damages within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order.

. MOTION: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL EEOC'S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT;S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Doc. No. 8S)

FaED:

September 28t 204>1

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

The Defendant is requesting that the Court compel the EEOC to respond more fully to the
following Interrogatory:
List every statement or action by Kevin Healey which you contend created or contributed to a hostile work environment, proving the date, time and place, witnesses and circumstances of each statement or action.

-13-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 14 of 16
The EEOC responded to this Interrogatory by generally describing the workplace, the individuals involved, and the time frame. The EEOC argues that this response is sufficient, and that it does not have the burden to review all ofthe extensive depositions that were taken ofthe Intervenors and the similarly situated females and the document discovery to cite the pages that describe each incident. The EEOC argues that the Defendant is well able to review the depositions and other discovery to find this information. The Defendant argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 requires the EEOC to respond to this Interrogatory fully. Rule 26 (b)(2) does allow the court to limit discovery if it determines: "(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive."
In the instant case, the EEOC provided a general outline ofthe dates, individuals, and location of the alleged sexual harassment. The Defendant has equal access to all of the discovery that was provided to it to locate the specific allegations ofthe similarly situated females. This Interrogatory was duplicative of the prior discovery, and therefore, the Court will deny the Motion to Compel.
MOTION: PLAINTIFF AND INTERVENORS' JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY CUT..OFF (Doc. No. 53)
FILED: August 30, 1001 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
-14-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 129 Filed 10/31/2001 Page 15 of 16
The Plaintiff and the Intervenors failed to set forth the exact discovery that has not been completed and the reason why each type of discovery had not been completed. Absent agreement by the Defendant, the Court will not generally extend the discovery period.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Ft. Myers, Florida this 3t -:,r day ofOctober, 2001.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

~rnR
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-15-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES DoFcumI eLnt E129 CFOilePd 1Y0/31/2001 Page 16 of 16
Date Printed: 10/31/2001
Notice sent to:
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Michael S. Moyles, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
C. Gregory Stewart, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas I Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gwendoln Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami l FL 33131
Pamela Pride-Chavies, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Kendra D. Presswood, Esq. Law Office of Kendra D. Presswood 1806 Manatee Ave. W. Bradenton, FL 34205

 </s> Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 172 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 1 of 12

)

)

sJ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2802 JI1rJ 24 AN 11: S6
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

and

VICTORIA BRIGGS and RESA GASTON,

Intervenors,

v.
KRONBERG BAGEL COMPANY d/b/a BAKIN' BAGELS,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:00-CV-409 FtM-29D
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Defendant.

------------------------------/
APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiffs

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Pamela Pride-Chavies, Esq.
Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower Two Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131

Intevenor Victoria Briggs Intevenor Resa Gaston
Kendra Presswood, Esq. 1806 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 33602

\-, ')

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 172 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 2 of 12

)

)

For Defendant
Zinober & McCrea, P.A. Sean Moyles, Esq.
201 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa Florida 33602

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 172 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 3 of 12

)

)

KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, U. S.D. J. 1 : Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") brings this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq., on behalf of Plaintiff-Intervenors Victoria Briggs ("Briggs") and Resa Gaston ("Gaston") and charging party Jacqueline Speaker ("Speaker"). The EEOC has identified Lauren Henderson2 ("Henderson") as being a "similarly situated female" and thus seeks relief on her behalf and for unidentified others who are " similarly situated". 3
The EEOC brought this action to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex. In particular the EEOC charges that Defendant Kronberg Bagels, doing business as Bakin' Bagels ("Defendant") knew or should have known that the charging Plaintiffs and other similarly situated females were
I United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation in the Middle District of Florida.
2 Lauren Henderson's married name is Lauren Adema. Henderson will be used throughout this memorandum.
3 Charges were filed with the EEOC by Plaintiffs Speaker, Briggs and Gaston. Only Briggs and Gaston have intervened in this action. Henderson has not intervened or filed private charges.
1

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 172 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 4 of 12

)

)

subjected to sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment.
There are several motions pending in this action. This Memorandum and Order will address Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Lauren Henderson and Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims of Resa Gaston. Plaintiff intervenor Gaston's motion for partial summary judgment, Plaintiff EEOC's motion for partial summary judgment and Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment will be addressed in a separate Memorandum and Order. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The EEOC and charging parties all complain about the behavior of Kevin Healy, a baker employed by Eakin' Bagels at the times relevant to this action.
The first to file a charge of discrimination was Briggs on November 2, 1999. Briggs was employed by Bakin' Bagels from September 27, 1999 to October 28, 1999 and claims to have been repeatedly subjected to derogatory and sexually charged comments by Healy. Among other things, he allegedly called her a "cunt" and suggested having a "quickie". Healy further commented that he wanted to grab her pigtails and "ride [her] for a good night of fucking". Briggs also claims that Healy assaulted her in the walk-in cooler, fondled her breasts and
2

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 172 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 5 of 12

)

)

crotch, forced her to touch his penis and asked if she wouldn't like to feel it up inside her.
On November 15, 1999, Resa Gaston filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Gaston was employed by Bakin' Bagels from August 24, 1999 until October 15, 1999. Gaston also claims to have been subjected to sexually inappropriate and threatening behavior by Healy. She claims Healy rubbed against her and made comments about her ~liking it". He would also grab her buttocks and put his hand between her legs. Gaston claims that not only did management witness such incidents, but actually encouraged them by laughing and ~egging" Healy on. Gaston alleges that such conduct occurred daily.
Finally, Jackie Speaker filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on December 21, 1999. Speaker was employed by Bakin' Bagels from August 1, 1999 until October 27, 1999. She claims that Healy subjected her to a variety of sexual harassment including touching her buttocks and making sexual and other degrading comments.
All three aggrieved parties claim to have informed management of Healy's behavior and all claim to have been constructively discharged because of the sexual harassment they suffered.
3

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 172 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 6 of 12

)

)

MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS OF RESA GASTON This motion can be disposed of quickly. The motion is
made pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. Rule 37(d) based on Gaston's failure to appear for her deposition scheduled for August 22, 2001. Gaston did not appear for her deposition, not out of bad faith or a desire to impede the discovery process, but because she was out of town and did not receive actual notice to appear.
Under these circumstances dismissal would effect a totally unjust and unfair result. Defendant has shown no resulting prejudice and still has time to depose Gaston, if it has not done so already, before the trial begins in March 2002. Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims of Resa Gaston is denied. CLAIMS OF LAUREN HENDERSON
Defendant also moves for summary judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56 alleging that Henderson has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies in that she did not file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Further, Defendant alleges that her claims cannot be revived by application of either the continuing violation doctrine or the single-filing rule.

4

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 172 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 7 of 12

)

)

Standard for Summary Judgment Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine
issue of material fact and the "moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). While the court must construe all evidence and inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, to sustain its burden, the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). Because I find Henderson's claims to be time-barred, Defendant's motion is granted. Analysis of Ms. Henderson's Cla~s
Ms. Henderson worked for Bakin' Bagels from June 14, 1998 until December 11, 1998 and claims that during her employment, she was subjected to insulting, threatening and sexually explicit comments by Healy. Healy allegedly called her a "bitch" and "whore", threatened to "kick her ass" and frequently and inappropriately touched her. Henderson further claims to have told the store manager about Healy's behavior. Henderson claims her fears grew to the point where she was concerned that Healy would corner her in the walk-in freezer and rape her. In December 1998, Henderson left her job, but
5

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 172 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 8 of 12

)

)

did not file a charge with the EEOC. She contacted the EEOC only after reading an article in the local paper about the sexual harassment charges filed against her former employer.
Because Florida is a "deferral" state, aggrieved parties have 300 days in which to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Henderson has never done so and it is undisputed that more than 300 days had passed between the time that Henderson left Bakin' Bagels employ and the time when Briggs filed her charge on November 2, 1999. The EEOC, however, alleges that it is permitted, pursuant to the continuing violation doctrine, to seek relief on her behalf.
The EEOC cites cases in support of its argument that where there is a continuing violation it should be permitted to pursue relief on behalf of all members of the aggrieved class. See EEOC v. Peterson, Howell & Heather, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 1213, 1225 (D.C. Md. 1989); EEOC v. Chicago Miniature Lamp Works, 640 F. Supp. 1291, 1296 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (" ... even persons who suffered discrimination during the earlier part of that continuous period (and not just within the 300 days) can become class members entitled to relief"). These cases, however, are not binding authority in the instant case and I am inclined to follow the more recent reasoning by the Eleventh Circuit in Hipp v. Liberty Nat'l Life Co., 252 F.3d
6

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 172 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 9 of 12

)

)

1208, 1220 (11th Cir. 2001) petition for cert. filed, 70 U.S.L.W. 3374 (Nov. 13, 2001) (No. 01-726).
While 1::l.iJ;m. involved the "opt-in" provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and the instant case is brought pursuant to Title VII, the court's analysis of what constitutes the "same time frame" is equally applicable here.
In Hi£2 the court disallowed a plaintiff's effort to piggyback
his untimely claim onto the representative claim. The court held that only those claims occurring within "the same time frame" could be piggybacked onto the representative charge. It then defined the "same time frame" to include only those claims occurring within the preceding 180 to 300 days before the filing of the representative charge. Id.
In 1::l.iJ;m., the plaintiff whose claims fell outside of the rearward scope of the 300 days claimed to have been forced to retire a year prior to the filing of the representative charge. Evidence indicated that he believed at the time he retired that he was being discriminated against but failed to file a charge with the EEOC. The court held that his claim could not be revived by the single filing rule. Id. He then argued that his claim should be revived by the continuing violation doctrine. The court disagreed and stated, "We can find no authority . . . for allowing one plaintiff to revive a
7

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 172 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 10 of 12

)

)

stale claim simply because the allegedly discriminatory policy still exists and is being enforced against others." Id. The court went to say that permitting the continuing violation doctrine to revive the claims in that case would ~contravene the doctrine's purpose". Id.
As in HiQn, piggybacking a claim onto the representative
charge is permitted in Title VII cases so long as ~ (1) the charge being relied upon [is] timely and not otherwise defective; and (2) the individual claims of the filing and non-filing plaintiffs must have arisen out of the similar discriminatory treatment in the ~ time frame." Calloway v. Partners National Health Plans, 986 F.2d 446, 449 (11th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added).
I see no legitimate reason why the Eleventh Circuit's
definition of ~the same time frame" in H.1.Im should not be
extended to the instant case as well. I recognize that the theories of discrimination in the two cases are different and
that the plaintiff in HiQQ suffered a discrete employment
action, a forced retirement whereas the EEOC has alleged a continuing violation in the nature of a hostile work environment here. Allowing the EEOC to sue on behalf of similarly situated individuals going back indefinitely in time, serves only to eradicate the purpose of the timely
8

) Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 172 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 11 of 12
)
filing requirement. This case presents exactly the situation
the court wished to avoid in HiQQ, in that it would allow the
plaintiff, in this case the EEOC, to revive a stale charge because the same sort of discrimination was allegedly being practiced against other employees. This does not prevent the EEOC from representing the interests of those similarly situated, if their claims arose within the proper filing period. To hold otherwise would render the timely filing requirement null and void. Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims of Lauren Henderson is granted. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York
January ~JJ 2002
9

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES )
Date Printed: 01/24/2002

Document 172 Filed 01/24/2002

F I L E COP Y

)

Page 12 of 12

Notice sent to:
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Michael S. Moyles, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
C. Gregory Stewart, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd'-, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gwendoln Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Pamela Pride-Chavies, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Kendra D. Presswood, Esq. Law Office of Kendra D. Presswood 1806 Manatee Ave. W. Bradenton, FL 34205

 </s> Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 196
)

Filed 02/05/2002
)

Page 1 of 3
FILED

~H UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURlio02 FEB

10: 56

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FT. MYERS DIVISION

CLERt\ L: S. JiSH\iC! ~OURT MIDDLE O,SrHiC: CF FLORIDA

FT HYERS DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION, ET AL.

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case No. 2:00-cv-409-FtM-29DNF

KRONBERG BAGEL COMPANY D/B/A BAKIN' BAGELS

Defendant.

ORDER
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

MOTION: DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL MENTAL EXAMINATION (Doc. No. 176)

FILED:

January 30, 2002

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. The Defendant Kronberg Bagel Company ("Kronberg") is renewing its request to have Intervenor Victoria Briggs submit to a mental examination and requesting for the first time that Intervenor Resa Gaston submit to a mental examination. On October 31, 2001, this Court entered an Order (Doc. 129) which denied Kronberg's request to have Intervenor Victoria Briggs submit to a mental examination holding that Ms. Briggs mental condition was not "in controversy." In the
-1-

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 196 Filed 02/05/2002 Page 2 of 3

)

)

Renewed Motion, Kronberg claims that new facts have surfaced and it has discovered new law on the issue. The new facts are that the EEOC and the Intervenors submitted their damage disclosures on November 19,2001 and November 20, 2001, respectively which indicate that they are seeking an amount of $366,600 per person for emotional distress and other pecuniary losses. The new law cited was an Order entered by the Honorable Mark A. Pizzo, United States Magistrate Judge on July 10, 2001 in the case of EEOC v. Rio Bravo International, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:99-cv-1371-T-17MAP, and an Order entered by the Honorable Thomas E. Morris, United States Magistrate Judge on July 25, 2001 in the case of Hartley v. St. Johns County, Florida, 3:OO-cv-l 006-J-25TEM and affirmed by the Honorable Henry L. Adams, United States District Judge on August 16,2001.
This action is set to go to trial before the Honorable Kevin T. Duffy, United States District Judge in March 2002, approximately one month from the date of this Order. Kronberg by its own admission received the damage disclosures in November 2001. The new law cited by Kronberg was determined in July and August 2001. Kronberg then waited until January 30, 2002 in which to file the instant motion. Kronberg does not provide any justification for the 'delay from November 2001 until January 30, 2002 in the filing of this motion. Therefore, the Court finds that the Renewed Motion to Compel Mental Examination is untimely and should be denied.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Ft. Myers, Florida this ~ day of February,
2002.

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

DOU AS N. F IER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

) ) Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES DFocIumLeEnt 196COFPileYd 02/05/2002 Page 3 of 3
Date Printed: 02/05/2002
Notice sent to:
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Michael S. Moyles, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
C. Gregory Stewart, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gwendoln Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Pamela Pride-Chavies, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Kendra D. Presswood, Esq. Law Office of Kendra D. Presswood 1806 Manatee Ave. W. Bradenton, FL 34205

 </s> Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 210 Filed 03/14/2002 Page 1 of 9

)

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, VICTORIA BRIGGS and RESA GASTON
Intevenors,

v.

KRONBERG BAGEL COMPANY d/b/a BAKIN' BAGELS
Defendant.
------------------------------~/
CONSENT DECREE 1. This Consent Decree (the "Decree") is made and entered into by and between the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission" or "EEOC"), and Plaintiff-Intervenors, Victoria Briggs and Resa Gaston (hereinafter referred to as "Intervenors" and Defendant, Kronberg Bagel Company d/b/a Bakin' Bagels, (hereinafter referred to as "Bakin' Bagels"). The Commission, Intervenors and Bakin' Bagels are collectively referred to herein as "the Parties." 2. On September 28,2000, EEOC filed this action against Bakin' Bagels and alleged that Bakin' Bagels violated Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, including but not limited to, amendments authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. Section 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). The EEOC's complaint alleged that Bakin' Bagels subjected three female individuals, Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston and Jackie Speaker, and other similarly situated females to sexual

SCANNED

I)\n

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 210 Filed 03/14/2002 Page 2 of 9

)

)

harassment in violation of Title VII. 3. In November, 2000, Intervenors filed a complaint under Title VII , and the Florida
Civil Rights Act (hereinafter referred to as" FCRA") and subsequently filed an Amended Complaint in April 2001, which asserted that they had been sexually harassed in violation of these statutes.
4. In the interest ofresolving this matter, to avoid the costs oflitigation, and as a result ofhaving engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action should be dismissed by the Court and finally resolved by the entry of this Decree. This Decree is final and binding upon the Parties, their successors and assigns.
S. The Parties agree that this Decree resolves and releases all claims against Bakin' Bagels alleged in EEOC Charge Numbers ISL AO 0010, 15L AO 0011 and ISL AO 0017 and the Complaints filed in this action by the EEOC and Intervenors. The Parties further agree that this Decree does not resolve any Charges of Discrimination that may be pending with the EEOC other than the Charges referred to in this paragraph.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having carefully examined the terms and provisions ofthis Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings filed by the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
JURISDICTION 6. This court has jurisdiction ofthe subject matter ofthis action and over the Parties for the purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree. 7. No party shall contest jurisdiction ofthis federal court to enforce this Decree and its terms or the right of the EEOC to seek the Court's enforcement of this Decree in the event of Defendant's noncompliance with any of the terms of this Decree.

2

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 210 Filed 03/14/2002 Page 3 of 9

)

)

GENERAL INJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS 8. Bakin' Bagels represents that although it was operating as a Florida corporation engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h), doing business in the State of Florida, in the City of Cape Coral, and maintaining at least 15 employees at all relevant times, it ceased its business operations on November 18, 200l. 9. Bakin' Bagels agrees that it will advise the EEOC ifit again commences any business operation at its Cape Coral, Florida, address or at any other location throughout the duration ofthis Decree. Such notification will be given within one month ofthe reopening of business operations. 10. Bakin' Bagels its officers, managers, and agents, agree that they will not engage in any conduct which violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by adversely affecting the tenns and conditions of any individual's employment because ofthat individual's sex.
TRAINING ON ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS 11. If and when Bakin' Bagels reopens, it agrees to conduct annual training for all of its officers, managers, and human resource personnel for the duration of this Decree. The first annual training shall occur within two months after the commencement of business operations. These training sessions will focus on the requirements of Title VII as they relate to sexual harassment. These training sessions shall last for at least three hours in length. The Defendant also agrees to provide the EEOC at least two weeks notice before it conducts each training session and provide the EEOC with copies of all training materials. The Defendant agrees that the EEOC may attend the training sessions. The Defendant agrees that within 30 days after each training session, it will provide the EEOC with a list that sets forth the date ofthe training, subjects discussed and the names and job titles of the individuals who attended the training.
3

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 210 Filed 03/14/2002 Page 4 of 9

)

)

POSTING 12. Ifand when Bakin' Bagels reopens it will post simultaneous with its reopening anI 1" x 17" size copy ofthe Notice attached hereto as Exhibit A. Said notice shall be posted at all Bakin' Bagels facilities for the duration ofthis Decree in conspicuous locations accessible to all employees.
MONETARY RELIEF 13. Bakin' Bagels hereby agrees to pay a total offorty-five thousand dollars, ($45,000.00) to resolve this litigation. The $45,000.00 will be disbursed as set forth in Exhibit B. 14. The monies paid to Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston and Jackie Speaker represent loss wages and compensatory damages. The Defendant shall issue forms 1099 and W-2 itemizing same, and shall be responsible for the payment ofthe employer's share ofsocial security withholdings for each Claimant. 15. Within ten (10) working days after the entry ofthe Court's Order the Defendant will mail Victoria Briggs' and Resa Gaston's, checks and relevant tax forms, via certified mail return receipt, to The Law Office ofKendra Presswood, 1806 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, Florida., 34205. Concurrent with the mailing of the checks and tax forms, the Defendant agrees to provide the EEOC with a copy of same. 16. Within ten (10) working days after the entry ofthe Court's Order the Defendant will mail Jackie Speaker's check and relevant tax forms, via certified mail return receipt, to Jackie Speaker, 7400 Constitution Circle, Unit #108, Ft. Myers, Florida, 33912. Concurrent with the mailing ofthe check and tax form, the Defendant agrees to provide the EEOC with a copy of same. 17. Within ten (10) working days after the entry ofthe Court's Order the Defendant will mail a check for attorney's fees, via certified mail return receipt, to Kendra Presswood, at 1806 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, Florida., 34205. Concurrent with the mailing of the check, the
4

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 210 Filed 03/14/2002 Page 5 of 9

)

)

Defendant agrees to provide the EEOC with a copy of same. 18. If Bakin' Bagels fails to tender the above-mentioned payments, the Defendant
shall:(1 ) pay interest on the defaulted payment at the rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.c. Section 6621(b) until the same is paid; and bear any additional costs incurred by the EEOC caused by the non-compliance or delay ofthe Defendant.
ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE 19. The Commission shall have independent authority to seek judicial enforcement of each aspect, term or provision of this Decree. 20. This Decree shall remain in effect for four (4) years from the date of the Court's execution of the Decree. Upon expiration of this period, the Decree will expire.
COSTS 21. Each Party shall bear its own costs associated with this litigation.

If- DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers this

1fT
day of Mar ,2002.

£-

GE

AGREED FOR THE PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

5

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 210 Filed 03/14/2002 Page 6 of 9

)

)

2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
FOR INTERVENORS
by: /C--£~ teIldra D. Presswood, Esq. 1806 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida. 34205

by: Peter Zinober, Esq c/o Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, Florida 33602

Date: :y'l~

6

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 210 Filed 03/14/2002 Page 7 of 9

)

)

EXHIBIT A NOTICE
POSTED PURSUANT TO A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, FT. MYERS DIVISION
In the Action of EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND VICTORIA BRIGGS
AND RESA GASTON v. KRONBERG BAGEL COMPANY d/b/a BAKIN' BAGELS This notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC and
Victoria Briggs and Resa Gaston v. Kronberg Bagel Company d/b/a Bakin' Bagels, Civil Action No
2:00-CV-409-FtM-29D. Bakin' Bagels will not discriminate against employees in violation ofTitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Title VII protects individuals from discrimination in all aspects of their employment, because oftheir race, religion, color, national origin, or sex.
Bakin' Bagels, Inc. assures its employees that it supports Title VII and will not take any
action against an individual because he/she has exercised hislher rights under the law to oppose discriminatory acts or to file charges with the EEOC.
This notice shall remain posted until May 1, 2006. Employees or applicants for employment
who have questions about their rights under Title VII or any other federal anti-discrimination law may telephone the Miami District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at 1-
800-669-4000, (305) 530-6001.

Signed this __ day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 2002.

PRESIDENT/CEO, Kronberg Bagel Company

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 210 Filed 03/14/2002 Page 8 of 9

)

)

EXHIBITB CLAIMANT DISBURSEMENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND VICTORIA BRIGGS AND RESA GASTON v. KRONBERG BAGEL COMPANYd/b/a BAKIN' BAGELS
1. Victoria Briggs shall be paid the sum of $1 ,000.00, for back wages. Victoria Briggs shall be paid the sum of$10,667.54, for compensatory damages.
2. Resa Gaston shall be paid the sum of$l,OOO.OO, for back wages. Resa Gaston shall be paid the sum of $7,983.10, for compensatory damages.
3. Jackie Speaker shall be paid the sum of $1,000.00, for back wages. Jackie Speaker shall be paid the sum of $6,500.00, for compensatory damages.

ATTORNEY FEE DISBURSEMENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND VICTORIA BRIGGS
AND RESA GASTON v. KRONBERG BAGEL COMPANY d/b/a BAKIN' BAGELS
1. Kendra Presswood Esq. shall be paid the total gross sum of 16,849.36, of which $9,582.46, are paid for services to Victoria Briggs and $7,266.90, for services to Resa Gaston.

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Date Printed: 03/15/2002

Document 210 Filed 03/14/2002 F I L E COP Y

Page 9 of 9

Notice sent to:
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Michael S. Moyles, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
C. Gregory Stewart, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gwendoln Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Pamela Pride-Chavies, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Kendra D. Presswood, Esq. Law Office of Kendra D. Presswood 1806 Manatee Ave. W. Bradenton, FL 34205

 </s> Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 173
)

Filed 01/24/2002
)

Page 1 of 15
r=11 r::-n
;J

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR~02 JAN 24 AM II: 56

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

:'.1, ,.J c , •

,

,T "

•

I - iU))~

r t I! ~ t :' ,)~; , l)k.i~;~,

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

and

VICTORIA BRIGGS and RESA GASTON,

Intervenors,

v.
KRONBERG BAGEL COMPANY d/b/a BAKIN' BAGELS,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:00-CV-409 FtM-29D
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Defendant.

------------------------------/
APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiffs

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Pamela Pride-Chavies, Esq.
Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower Two Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131

Intervenor Victoria Briggs Intervenor Resa Gaston
Kendra Presswood, Esq. 1806 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 33602

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 173 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 2 of 15

)

)

For Defendant
Zinober & McCrea, P.A. Sean Moyles, Esq.
201 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa Florida 33602

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 173 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 3 of 15

)

)

KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, U. S •D • J. 1 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") brings this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq., on behalf of Plaintiff-Intervenors Victoria Briggs ("Briggs") and Resa Gaston ("Gaston") and charging party Jacqueline Speaker (" Speaker" ) .
The EEOC brought this action to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex. In particular the EEOC charges that Defendant Kronberg Bagels, doing business as Bakin' Bagels ("Defendant") knew or should have known that the charging Plaintiffs and other similarly situated females were subjected to sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment.
In a separate Memorandum and Order dated January 23, 2002, I denied Defendant's motion to dismiss Gaston's claims and granted its motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Lauren Henderson. 2 This Memorandum and Order addresses the outstanding motions by all parties for partial summary judgment.
United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by Designation in the Middle District of Florida.
2 Henderson's married name is Adema. 1

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 173 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 4 of 15

)

)

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The EEOC and charging parties all complain about the
behavior of Kevin Healy, a baker employed by Bakin' Bagels at the times relevant to this action. The first to file a charge of discrimination was Briggs on November 2, 1999. Briggs was employed by Bakin' Bagels from September 27, 1999 to October 28, 1999 and claims to have been repeatedly subjected to derogatory and sexually charged comments by Healy. Among other things, he allegedly called her a "cunt" and suggested having a "quickie". Healy further commented that he wanted to grab her pigtails and "ride [her] for a good night of fucking". Briggs also claims that Healy assaulted her in the walk-in cooler, fondled her breasts and crotch, forced her to touch his penis and asked if she wouldn't like to feel it up inside her.
On November 15, 1999, Resa Gaston filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Gaston was employed by Bakin' Bagels from August 24, 1999 until October 15, 1999. Gaston also claims to have been subjected to sexually inappropriate and threatening behavior by Healy. She claims Healy rubbed against her and made comments about her "liking it". He would also grab her buttocks and put his hand between her legs. Gaston claims that not only did management witness such
2

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 173
)

Filed 01/24/)2002 Page 5 of 15

incidents, but actually encouraged them by laughing and "egging" Healy on. Gaston alleges that such conduct occurred daily.
Finally, Jackie Speaker filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on December 21, 1999. Speaker was employed by Bakin' Bagels from August 1, 1999 until October 27, 1999. She claims that Healy also subjected her to a variety of sexual harassment including touching her buttocks and making sexual and other degrading comments.
All three aggrieved parties claim to have informed management of Healy's behavior and all claim to have been constructively discharged because of the sexual harassment they suffered.
STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the "moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). While the court must construe all evidence and inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, to sustain its burden, the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). The party seeking
3

) ) Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 173 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 6 of 15
summary judgment bears the burden of showing the lack of a genuine factual issue. American Viking Contractors, Inc. Scribner Equip. Co., 745 F.2d 1365, 1369 (11th Cir. 1984). Once the moving party has provided adequate support for its motion, the non-moving party must provide "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. MOTIONS AS TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Both the EEOC and the Intervenors have moved for partial summary judgment against several of the affirmative defenses asserted by the Defendant. Defendant has agreed to withdraw its First, Third and Seventh Affirmative Defenses. 3 These are deemed withdrawn.
All Plaintiffs also seek summary judgment against Defendant's Sixth Affirmative Defense for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendant admits that Briggs and Speaker have exhausted their administrative remedies and questions only whether Gaston has. The basis of their argument is that they have not deposed Gaston and are therefore "unable to determine the period of time over which Gaston is claiming that she was subjected to harassment."
3 These three defenses are identical as to the EEOC and Intervenors and are withdrawn as to all.
4

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 173 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 7 of 15
)
Defendant's Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Document # 110 at 6. This argument not only does not raise a genuine issue of material fact, but borders on the frivolous. According to the Defendant's own employment records Gaston worked at Bakin' Bagels from August 24, 1999 until October 15, 1999. Gaston filed her complaint with the EEOC on November 15, 1999. She was sexually harassed, if at all, during her employment at Bakin' Bagels, the entire course of which occurred within the 300 preceding days. In other words, for her to have been harassed while working at Bakin' Bagels, it must have occurred within the preceding 300 days. Moreover, I previously denied Defendant's motion to dismiss Gaston's complaint for failure to show for her deposition and have provided Defendant adequate time to depose Gaston prior to trial. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Defendant's Sixth Affirmative Defense is granted. 4
4 As against the Intervenors, Defendant has also asserted additional "failure to exhaust administrative remedies" claims in its Ninth and Tenth Affirmative Defenses. According to the Worksharing Agreement between the EEOC and the Lee County Office of Equal Opportunity, charges are automatically dual filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Neither party has provided any additional information, however, and I am therefore unable at the present time to determine whether the state charges were also timely filed. Thus, for the time being, the motion for summary judgment as to these defenses is denied.
5

Case 2:00-cv-00409-J)ES Document 173 Filed 01/24/2)002 Page 8 of 15
Whether Hea1y is a Co-Worker or Supervisor The remaining disputes center primarily on the basis for
holding the Defendant liable for the acts of its employee, Kevin Healy. Defendant has pled alternative defenses based on whether Healy is determined to be a supervisor or co-worker and would withdraw its Fifth Affirmative Defense, if Healy is found to be a co-worker.
It is undisputed that Healy did not have a supervisory title. In her affidavit Gaston admits that after initially believing otherwise, she was told by a manager that Healy was not management. Gaston Affidavit ~ 18. There appears to be no evidence that any management employee ever held Healy out to the other employees as having supervisory authority or that they ever officially delegated any such authority to him.
There is evidence in the record, however, that Healy did hold himself out as a supervisor. Healy allegedly told Speaker that he "could fire her" and she perceived him to be a "third supervisor". Speaker Deposition at 45. Other aggrieved parties also indicated that Healy "bosse~ them around. Briggs Deposition at 32-35; Gaston Affidavit ~ 18. Henderson (Adema) also indicated that Healy disciplined her. Adema Deposition at 93. Thus, there is a dispute in the record about the extent of Healy's supervisory authority. If
6

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 173 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 9 of 15
)
Plaintiffs can show that Healy had the authority to direct the daily activities of the aggrieved parties, then they may be permitted to impute vicarious liability to the Defendant. Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Lab, Inc., 163 F.3d 1236, 1247 n. 20 (lllli Cir. 1998) (" [A]pparent authority serves just as well to impute liability to the employer for the employee's action" ) .
In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 u.s. 775, 807
(1998), the Supreme Court held that an employer may be held vicariously liable for the acts of its supervisory employees for the creation of a hostile work environment, subject to the defense that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct such harassment and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the remedy available. 5 Whether Healy had the authority to act as a supervisor is a question of fact for the jury to decide. The Defendant has indicated its willingness to withdraw its Fifth Affirmative
5 The parties dispute whether the Defendant actually had any process or remedy available. It is undisputed that they had no formal written policy, no employee handbooks, offered no classes or training on how to handle complaints of sexual harassment. Defendant claims, with only minimal support however, that it had an informal procedure of some sort for handling such complaints. I would note, that passing the buck up the line of supervisors is not an adequate procedure. Again, however, this is a highly material factual question which is appropriately decided by the jury.
7

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 173 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 10 of 15

)

)

Defense should Healy be found to be a co-worker rather than a supervisor. If that is the finding at trial, then the defense will be deemed withdrawn. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to Defendant's Fifth Affirmative Defense is denied.
All other requests by plaintiffs EEOC and the intervenors for partial summary judgment as to Defendant's Affirmative Defenses are denied.
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant has moved for partial summary judgment on several grounds: 1) that Speaker was not subjected to harassment based on her sex and that any such harassment was not severe enough to alter the terms and conditions of her employment; 2) that there is no basis for holding Defendant liable as Plaintiffs did not provide it adequate notice of the harassment and cannot show that Defendant did not take prompt remedial action and 3) that Plaintiffs cannot show they were constructively discharged. Because I find there are genuine issues of material fact regarding all of Defendant's claims, the motions for summary judgment are denied. Whether Speaker's C1a~s are Based on Sex and Their Severity
One of the elements in a claim for sexual harassment is that the harassment be based on the Plaintiff's sex. Henson
8

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 173 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 11 of 15

)

)

v. Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 903-04 (11th Cir. 1982); Breda v. Wolf Camera & Video, 222 F.3d 886, 889 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2000).
Defendant argues that Healy's comments about Speaker being a "little girl" are not sexual. It further argues that Healy did not get along with any of Bakin' Bagel's employees, male or female and treated them all equally badly. Defendant admits that much of Healy's other conduct, making passes at Speaker, talking to her about her sexual activities with her boyfriend and inappropriately touching her buttocks were sexual but not severe enough to change the conditions and terms of her employment.
Defendant's selective discussion of Healy's remarks, taken out of context, are wholly inadequate to establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. "The courts should examine the conduct in context, not as isolated acts, and determine under the totality of the circumstances whether the harassing conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of the plaintiff's employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment." Mendoza, 195 F.3d at 1246 (citations omitted); Griffin v. OpaLocka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1305 (11th Cir. 2001) (whether harassment occurred under color of law depended on "the entire pattern of abuse and harassment").
9

) Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 173 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 12 of 15
)
Taken in context, there is ample testimony to support the aggrieved parties' allegations that they were subjected to severe harassment based on their gender and which was sufficient to alter their working conditions. They allege numerous instances of Healy using offensive sexual language and numerous instances of inappropriate sexual touching. There is also evidence that such comments were primarily directed at Bakin' Bagels female employees. Any ambiguity about the sexual nature of specific comments must be resolved at trial not on a motion for summary judgment. Basis for Defendant's Liability
If it is determined that Healy was a supervisor then Defendant can defend against liability by showing that it took adequate steps to prevent and correct the harassment and that the aggrieved parties unreasonably failed to take advantage of the remedy provided. Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807. If Healy is determined to be a co-worker Defendant would be liable if it knew or should have known of the harassment and did nothing to rectify it. Henson, 682 F.2d at 905; Breda, 222 F.3d at 889.
In either case the question of if or when Defendant had notice of the harassment is relevant. When the Defendant had notice, either actual or constructive, is a material fact which the parties hotly dispute. Defendant claims it did not
10

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 173 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 13 of 15

)

)

have notice until immediately preceding the resignations of Speaker and Briggs and that upon receiving such notice it took prompt remedial action by suspending Healy without pay and performing an internal investigation. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were aware or should have been aware of the harassment much earlier, possibly as early as August 1998 when Lauren Henderson claims to have complained about Healy's conduct. 6 In addition, Plaintiffs allege that they informed management of the problems with Healy on several occasions prior to their resignations and that management was aware of the harassment because they witnessed and even participated in it. Obviously summary judgment would be inappropriate on this issue. See Breda, 222 F.3d at 890 (remanding for factual determination of the number and timing of complaints made to employer) . Constructive Discharge
~When 'an employee involuntarily resigns in order to escape intolerable and illegal employment requirements' to which he or she is subjected because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, the employer has committed a constructive discharge in violation of Title VII." Henson,
6 Henderson is a former employee of Bakin' Bagels who resigned in December 1998. See Memorandum and Order dated January 23, 2002.
11

) ) Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES Document 173 Filed 01/24/2002 Page 14 of 15
682 F.2d 897, 907 (quoting Young v. Southwestern Savings & Loan Assoc., 509 F.2d 140, 144 (5th Cir. 1975)). Whether the Plaintiffs were constructively discharged in this case depends on the answers to the questions of fact discussed above. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is therefore denied. CONCLUSION
Defendant's First, Third and Seventh Affirmative Defenses are deemed withdrawn. Summary judgment is granted on Defendant's Sixth Affirmative Defense for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The motions for summary judgment as to the remaining Affirmative Defenses are denied.
All Defendant's motions for partial summary judgment are denied. SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York January 23, 2002

KEVIN THOMAS D

12

Case 2:00-cv-00409-JES
)
Date Printed: 01/24/2002

Document 173 Filed 01/24/2002

F I L E COP Y

)

Page 15 of 15

Notice sent to:
Peter W. Zinober, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
Michael S. Moyles, Esq. Zinober & McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602
C. Gregory Stewart, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gwendoln Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Pamela Pride-Chavies, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Kendra D. Presswood, Esq. Law Office of Kendra D. Presswood 1806 Manatee Ave. W. Bradenton, FL 34205

 </s> Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 1 of 21

CLOSED, DNF, VJUDGE
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:00-cv-00409-JES

EEOC v. Kronberg Bagel Co. Assigned to: Judge John E. Steele Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Date Filed: 09/28/2000 Date Terminated: 03/14/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by C. Gregory Stewart Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Delner Franklin-Thomas Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Suite 2700 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6001 Email: delner.franklinthomas@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gwendolyn Y. Reams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Farrell Jill S. Schwartz & Associates, PA

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 2 of 21

V.
Defendant
Kronberg Bagel Company doing business as Bakin' Bagels

Suite 200 180 Park Ave N Winter Park, FL 32789 407/647-8911 Fax: 407/628-4994 Email: mfarrell@schwartzlawfirm.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela Pride-Chavies Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by M. Sean Moyles Langston, Hess, Bolton, Shepard and Augustine, P.A. 630 Chestnut Street Clearwater, FL 33756 727/479-1900 Fax: 727/723-7150 Email: smoyles@LangstonHess.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter W. Zinober Greenberg Traurig, P.A. Courthouse Plaza, Suite 100 625 Twiggs Street Tampa, FL 33602 813-318-5700 Fax: 813-318-5900 Email: zinoberp@gtlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raul Valles, Jr. Rocke McLean & Sbar, P.A. 2309 S. MacDill Avenue Tampa, FL 33629 813/769-5608

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 3 of 21

Movant Bakin' Bagels
Movant Fritz & Fuzzy's, Inc
Movant Kronberg Investment Group, Ltd.

Fax: 813/769-5601 Email: rvalles@rmslegal.com TERMINATED: 03/19/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheri D. McWhorter Foley & Lardner LLP 100 N. Tampa St., Suite 2700 P.O. Box 3391 Tampa, FL 33601-3391 813/229-2300 Fax: 813/221-4210 Email: smcwhorter@foley.com TERMINATED: 03/19/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by M. Sean Moyles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by M. Sean Moyles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by M. Sean Moyles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 4 of 21

Movant Northern Food Services, Inc.
Movant Northern Food Services, II, Inc.
Movant Northern Food Services, III, Inc.
Movant Northern Food Services IV, Inc.
Movant Western Management Services, Inc.

represented by M. Sean Moyles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by M. Sean Moyles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by M. Sean Moyles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by M. Sean Moyles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by M. Sean Moyles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 5 of 21

Intervenor Plaintiff Victoria Briggs
Intervenor Plaintiff Resa Gaston
V. Intervenor Defendant Kronberg Bagel Company doing business as Bakin' Bagels

Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kendra D. Presswood Law Office of Kendra D. Presswood, P.A. P.O. Box 1006 1806 Manatee Ave, West Holmes Beach, FL 34218-1006 941/749-6433 Fax: 813-354-2772 Email: kendra@presswoodlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kendra D. Presswood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by M. Sean Moyles (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter W. Zinober (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raul Valles, Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sheri D. McWhorter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 6 of 21

Date Filed 09/28/2000 09/28/2000 09/28/2000 10/02/2000 10/02/2000 10/16/2000
10/16/2000 10/16/2000 11/27/2000
12/08/2000
12/12/2000
12/12/2000
12/18/2000 12/21/2000 12/22/2000 12/22/2000

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; jury demand. (drn) (Entered: 09/28/2000)

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: Douglas N. Frazier (drn) (Entered: 09/28/2000)

SUMMONS(ES) issued for Kronberg Bagel Co. (drn) (Entered: 09/28/2000)

2 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - TRACK 2. (ctc) (sll) (Entered: 10/02/2000)

3 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER ( Signed by Judge John E. Steele ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 10/02/2000)

4 NOTICE of filing certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement and notice of pendency of other actions by EEOC (sll) (Entered: 10/16/2000)

5 NOTICE by EEOC of pendency of other actions re: order of compliance to local rule (sll) (Entered: 10/16/2000)

6 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE by EEOC Re: [3-1] order (sll) (Entered: 10/16/2000)

7 MOTION with memorandum in support to intervene by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (Intervenors' complaint attached) (sll) (Entered: 11/28/2000)

8 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. to extend time to serve response to motion to intervene referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (lap) (Entered: 12/08/2000)

9 ORDER granting [8-1] motion to extend time to serve response to motion to intervene, response to motion set to 12/15/00 for [7-1] motion to intervene by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston ( Signed by Judge John E. Steele ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 12/12/2000)

10 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER directing Kronberg Bagel Company d/b/a Bakin' Bagels to file a certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement within 11 days. ( Signed by Judge John E. Steele ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 12/12/2000)

11 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to [1-1] complaint by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 12/18/2000)

12 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE by Kronberg Bagel Co. Re: [10-1] order (sll) (Entered: 12/21/2000)

13 NOTICE by Kronberg Bagel Co. of pendency of other actions re: order of compliance to local rule (lap) (Entered: 12/22/2000)

14 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT (c: courtroom deputy) (lap) (Entered:

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 7 of 21

12/27/2000 12/27/2000 01/17/2001
01/18/2001 01/29/2001 02/20/2001 02/22/2001
02/22/2001 03/02/2001 03/15/2001 03/19/2001
04/09/2001 04/09/2001

12/22/2000)
15 ORDER granting [7-1] motion to intervene by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier ) ctc (lap) (Entered: 12/27/2000)
16 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston against Kronberg Bagel Co. (lap) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
17 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Joining of parties,amending of pleadings on 4/9/01 ; Discovery cutoff 9/7/01 ; dispositive motion filing deadline for 10/5/01 Pretrial statement due on or before 12/28/01 ; Pretrial conference for 10:00 2/8/02 ; Jury trial set for 3/4/02 ; Scheduled for Judge John E. Steele ( signed by Judge John E. Steele ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
18 ANSWER and affirmative defenses by Kronberg Bagel Co. to [16-1] intervenor complaint (sll) (Entered: 01/19/2001)
19 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston Re: [3-1] order (sll) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
20 AGREED MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. for leave to amend [11-1] answer referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
21 ORDER granting [20-1] motion for leave to amend [11-1] answer. The Clerk is directed to file the defendant's amended answer and affirmative defenses to EEOC's complaint. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 02/22/2001)
22 AMENDED ANSWER to complaint by Kronberg Bagel Co. : amends [11-1] answer (sll) (Entered: 02/22/2001)
23 NOTICE by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston of unavailability of counsel from 7/23/01 to 8/3/01 (sll) (Entered: 03/02/2001)
24 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. to substitute attorney referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 03/15/2001)
25 ORDER granting [24-1] motion to substitute attorney terminated attorney Sheri D. McWhorter for Kronberg Bagel Co., attorney Raul Valles for Kronberg Bagel Co., attorney Raul Valles for Kronberg Bagel Co., attorney Sheri D. McWhorter for Kronberg Bagel Co. Added Peter W. Zinober, Michael S. Moyles. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 03/19/2001)
26 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support for leave to file 3rd party complaint against Kevin Healy referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
27 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support for leave to file amended answer to intervenors' complaint , and for leave to file second amended answer to EEOC'S complaint referred to Magistrate

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 8 of 21

04/09/2001 04/11/2001 04/11/2001 04/19/2001 04/23/2001
04/23/2001 04/23/2001 04/23/2001 05/10/2001 05/18/2001 05/29/2001 05/30/2001

Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
28 UNOPPOSED MOTION and memorandum of law in support by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston UNOPPOSED for leave to amend [16-1] intervenor complaint referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
29 AMENDED NOTICE of of Local Rule 3.01(g) certification regarding defendant's motion for leave to file amended answers by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 04/11/2001)
30 AMENDED NOTICE of Local Rule 3.01(g) certification regarding defendant's motion to file third party complaint against Kevin Healy by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 04/11/2001)
31 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [26-1] motion for leave to file 3rd party complaint against Kevin Healy (sll) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
32 ORDER granting [28-1] consent motion UNOPPOSED for leave to amend [16-1] intervenor complaint and the Clerk is directed to file the Intervenors' First Amended Complaint which is attached to the motion as a separate document; granting [27-1] motion for leave to file amended answer to intervenors' complaint, granting [27-2] motion for leave to file second amended answer to EEOC'S complaint and the Clerk is directed to file the Second Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the EEOC's Complaint which is attached to the Motion as a separate document. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 04/23/2001)
33 AMENDED INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston : amending [16-1] intervenor complaint; Jury Demand (sll) (Entered: 04/24/2001)
34 AMENDED ANSWER and affirmative defenses to intervenor's complaint by Kronberg Bagel Co. : amends [18-1] intervenor answer (sll) (Entered: 04/24/2001)
35 SECOND AMENDED ANSWER and affirmative defenses to complaint by Kronberg Bagel Co. : amends [11-1] answer (sll) (Entered: 04/24/2001)
36 ORDER denying [26-1] motion for leave to file 3rd party complaint against Kevin Healy ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 05/10/2001)
37 ANSWER and affirmative defenses by Kronberg Bagel Co. to [33-1] intervenor complaint (sll) (Entered: 05/21/2001)
39 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support to review [36-1] order (sll) (Entered: 05/31/2001)
38 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support to review [36-1] order (sll) (Entered: 05/30/2001)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 9 of 21

06/12/2001 06/27/2001 07/30/2001 08/10/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001
08/16/2001
08/16/2001
08/20/2001 08/21/2001 08/21/2001 08/21/2001 08/21/2001 08/28/2001

40 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [38-1] motion to review [36-1] order, [39-1] motion to review [36-1] order (sll) (Entered: 06/12/2001)
41 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [38-1] motion to review [36-1] order, terminating [39-1] motion to review [36-1] order ( Signed by Judge John E. Steele ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 06/27/2001)
42 MOTION by EEOC to compel discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
43 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support to extend time to respond to motion to compel referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 08/10/2001)
44 RESPONSE by Kronberg Bagel Co. in opposition to [42-1] motion to compel discovery (sll) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
45 ORDER granting [43-1] motion to extend time to respond to motion to compel, response to motion set to 8/13/01 for [42-1] motion to compel discovery by plaintiff ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 08/13/2001)
46 MOTION by Bakin' Bagels, Fritz & Fuzzy's, Inc, Kronberg Investment, Northern Food Serv., Northern Food Serv., Northern Food Serv., Northern Food Serv., Western Management with memorandum in support to quash subpoenas referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
47 EMERGENCY MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support for protection of inquiry, through deposition or otherwise relating to certain corporate entities separate and distinct from Bakin' Bagels referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 08/17/2001)
48 NOTICE of filing original signature page by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
49 RESPONSE by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston in opposition to [47-1] motion for protection of inquiry, through deposition or otherwise (sll) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
50 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE on discovery dispute held on 8/21/01 before Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier Court Reporter: None (sll) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
ORAL MOTION in open court by Kronberg Bagel Co. to direct witness to answer questions at deposition referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
ORAL ORDER granting [0-0] motion to direct witness to answer questions at deposition ( Entered by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier ) (sll) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
51 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support to

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 10 of 21

08/29/2001 08/30/2001 08/30/2001 08/30/2001 08/30/2001 08/31/2001 08/31/2001 08/31/2001 09/07/2001 09/07/2001
09/07/2001 09/07/2001 09/07/2001 09/07/2001

compel more complete responses to request to produce , and for sanctions referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 08/28/2001)
52 NOTICE of filing case cites by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 08/29/2001)
53 JOINT MOTION and memorandum of law by EEOC, Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston to extend time discovery cut-off referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
54 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support for summary judgment as to the claims of Lauren Henderson (sll) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
55 NOTICE of filing attached deposition excerpts by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
56 NOTICE of summary judgment (sll) (Entered: 08/30/2001)
57 RESPONSE with memorandum of law by EEOC to [47-1] motion for protection of inquiry, through deposition or otherwise (bjt) (Entered: 08/31/2001)
58 EMERGENCY MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support for protective order regarding deposition referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (lap) (Entered: 08/31/2001)
59 ORDER granting [58-1] motion for protective order regarding deposition ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier ) ctc (lap) (Entered: 08/31/2001)
60 SECOND MOTION by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston with memorandum in support to compel discovery , to strike defenses referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (bjt) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
61 JOINT MOTION by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston, EEOC to compel discovery requests , or in the alternative to strike affirmative defenses referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (bjt) Modified on 09/18/2001 (Entered: 09/07/2001)
63 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support to compel mental examination referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (lap) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
64 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support to compel complete damages disclosures referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (lap) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
65 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support to dismiss the claims of Resa Gaston (lap) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
66 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support to compel mental examination referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 09/13/2001)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 11 of 21

09/07/2001 09/10/2001
09/13/2001 09/17/2001 09/17/2001
09/19/2001 09/19/2001 09/19/2001
09/20/2001 09/20/2001 09/20/2001 09/24/2001 09/24/2001 09/24/2001 09/24/2001

67 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support to dismiss claims of Resa Gaston (sll) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
62 MOTION by EEOC with memorandum in support for reconsideration of [59-1] order , or in the alternative for leave to take additional day of deposition of Chris Kronberg referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (bjt) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
68 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. to extend time for filing memorandum in opposition to joint motion to extend discovery cut-off referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
69 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [51-1] motion to compel more complete responses to request to produce, [51-2] motion for sanctions (sll) (Entered: 09/17/2001)
70 ORDER granting [42-1] motion to compel discovery, granting [46-1] motion to quash subpoenas, denying [47-1] motion for protection of inquiry, through deposition or otherwise ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 09/17/2001)
71 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [54-1] motion for summary judgment (sll) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
72 STATEMENT of material facts in dispute by EEOC in support of [71-1] opposition response (sll) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
73 NOTICE of filing attached partial deposition transcripts in support of its response to defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the EEOC's claim for relief on behalf of Lauren Henderson by EEOC (sll) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
74 MEMORANDUM by Kronberg Bagel Co. in opposition to [61-1] joint motion to compel discovery requests, [61-2] joint motion to strike affirmative defenses (sll) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
75 RESPONSE by Kronberg Bagel Co. in opposition to [62-1] motion for reconsideration of [59-1] order, [62-2] motion for leave to take additional day of deposition of Chris Kronberg (sll) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
76 RESPONSE by Kronberg Bagel Co. in opposition to [60-1] motion to compel discovery (sll) (Entered: 09/21/2001)
77 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [63-1] motion to compel mental examination (sll) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
78 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [64-1] motion to compel complete damages disclosures (sll) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
79 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [65-1] motion to dismiss the claims of Resa Gaston (sll) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
80 RESPONSE by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston in opposition to [64-1] motion to compel complete damages disclosures (sll) (Entered: 09/24/2001)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 12 of 21

09/24/2001 09/24/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001 09/28/2001
10/01/2001 10/02/2001 10/04/2001 10/04/2001 10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/05/2001
10/05/2001

81 RESPONSE by Resa Gaston in opposition to [65-1] motion to dismiss the claims of Resa Gaston (sll) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
82 RESPONSE by Victoria Briggs to [63-1] motion to compel mental examination (sll) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
83 NOTICE of filing documents relating to plaintiff's response in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Lauren Henderson by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
84 NOTICE of filing attached complete deposition transcripts in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Lauren Henderson by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
85 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support to compel EEOC's answer to defendant's second set of interrogatories referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 09/28/2001)
86 NOTICE of withdrawal of defendant's motion to compel more complete responses to request to produce and for sanctions by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
87 NOTICE of additional authority in support of motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Lauren Henderson by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
94 NOTICE of filing affidavit of Resa Gaston by Resa Gaston (sll) Modified on 10/05/2001 (Entered: 10/05/2001)
95 AFFIDAVIT of Resa Gaston by Resa Gaston Re: [81-1] opposition response (sll) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
88 INTERVENERS' MOTION by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston for partial summary judgment (sll) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
89 INTERVENERS' MEMORANDUM by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston in support of [88-1] motion for partial summary judgment (sll) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
90 DEFENDANT'S MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support for partial summary judgment regarding the claims of Briggs and Speaker (sll) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
91 DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT of undisputed facts by Kronberg Bagel Co. in support of [90-1] motion for partial summary judgment (sll) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
92 DEFENDANT'S NOTICE of filing attached complete deposition transcripts in support of its motion for partial summary judgment regarding the claims of Briggs and Speaker by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
93 NOTICE of summary judgment (sll) (Entered: 10/05/2001)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 13 of 21

10/05/2001
10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/09/2001 10/12/2001
10/12/2001
10/17/2001
10/18/2001 10/18/2001
10/18/2001
10/18/2001 10/18/2001 10/18/2001
10/18/2001 10/19/2001 10/19/2001

96 MOTION by EEOC for partial summary judgment regarding defendant's 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th & 11th affirmative defenses. (sll) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
97 MEMORANDUM by EEOC in support of [96-1] motion for partial summary judgment (sll) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
98 STATEMENT of material facts by EEOC in support of [96-1] motion for partial summary judgment (sll) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
99 NOTICE of summary judgment (sll) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
100 UNOPPOSED MOTION by EEOC UNOPPOSED to extend time to respond to motion to compel referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (Proposed Order Attached) (sll) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
101 ORDER granting [100-1] consent motion UNOPPOSED to extend time to respond to motion to compel ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier ) ctc (bjt) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
102 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [85-1] motion to compel EEOC's answer to defendant's second set of interrogatories (sll) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
103 RESPONSE by Kronberg Bagel Co. in opposition to [88-1] motion for partial summary judgment (sll) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
104 NOTICE of filing corrected response to defendant's motion to compel EEOC's answers to defendant's second set of interrogatories and supporting memorandum of law by EEOC (sll) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
105 CORRECTED RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [85-1] motion to compel EEOC's answer to defendant's second set of interrogatories (sll) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
106 NOTICE of filing deposition transcripts by EEOC (sll) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
107 DEPOSITION of Victoria Petra Briggs by EEOC re: [105-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
108 DEPOSITION of Jacqueline Lee Speaker by EEOC re: [105-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
109 DEPOSITION of Lauren Joy Adema by EEOC re: [105-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
110 RESPONSE by Kronberg Bagel Co. in opposition to [96-1] motion for partial summary judgment (sll) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
111 NOTICE of filing deposition excerpts in support of response to plaintiff EEOC's motion for partial summary judgment by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 10/19/2001)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 14 of 21

10/19/2001 10/19/2001 10/19/2001 10/19/2001 10/19/2001 10/19/2001 10/19/2001 10/19/2001 10/19/2001 10/19/2001 10/19/2001 10/22/2001 10/22/2001 10/22/2001 10/22/2001 10/24/2001

112 DEPOSITION of Victoria Petra Briggs by Kronberg Bagel Co. re: [1101] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
113 DEPOSITION of Clarence John Kronberg by Kronberg Bagel Co. re: [110-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
114 DEPOSITION of Jacqueline Lee Speaker by Kronberg Bagel Co. re: [110-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
115 DEPOSITION of Michael Deblasi by Kronberg Bagel Co. re: [110-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
116 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [90-1] motion for partial summary judgment (sll) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
117 STATEMENT of material facts in dispute by EEOC in support of [1161] opposition response (sll) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
118 NOTICE of filing deposition transcripts in support of its response to defendant's motion for summary judgment by EEOC (sll) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
119 DEPOSITION of Victoria Petra Briggs by EEOC re: [116-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
120 DEPOSITION of Jacqueline Lee Speaker by EEOC re: [116-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
121 DEPOSITION of Lauren Joy Adema by EEOC re: [116-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
122 STATEMENT of material facts as to which a genuine issue exists in response to plaintiff's statement of material facts by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
123 NOTICE of filing affidavit of Resa Gasto by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston (sll) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
124 AFFIDAVIT of Resa Gaston by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston (sll) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
125 RESPONSE by Victoria Briggs in opposition to [90-1] motion for partial summary judgment (sll) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
126 STATEMENT of disputed facts in support of response to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment by Victoria Briggs (sll) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
127 NOTICE of filing affidavit of John Kronberg in support of its responses to intervenors' and plaintiff's motions for partial summary judgment by

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 15 of 21

10/24/2001 10/31/2001
10/31/2001 11/06/2001 11/19/2001 11/20/2001 11/20/2001 11/23/2001 11/30/2001 12/03/2001 12/03/2001 12/07/2001 12/10/2001

Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 10/25/2001)
128 AFFIDAVIT of C. John Kronberg by Kronberg Bagel Co. Re: [110-1] opposition response, [103-1] opposition response (sll) (Entered: 10/25/2001)
129 ORDER granting [86-1] notice denying as moot [51-1] motion to compel more complete responses to request to produce, denying as moot [51-2] motion for sanctions, granting [68-1] motion to extend time for filing memorandum in opposition to joint motion to extend discovery cut-off, granting in part, denying in part [60-1] motion to compel discovery, denying [60-2] motion to strike defenses, granting in part, denying in part [61-1] joint motion to compel discovery requests, denying [61-2] joint motion to strike affirmative defenses, granting [62-1] motion for reconsideration of [59-1] order, granting [62-2] motion for leave to take additional day of deposition of Chris Kronberg, denying [63-1] motion to compel mental examination, denying as moot [66-1] motion to compel mental examination, granting [64-1] motion to compel complete damages disclosures, denying [85-1] motion to compel EEOC's answer to defendant's second set of interrogatories, denying without prejudice [531] joint motion to extend time discovery cut-off ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
130 MEMORANDUM by Kronberg Bagel Co. in opposition to [53-1] joint motion to extend time discovery cut-off (sll) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
131 NOTICE of filing the original attached signature page of the affidavit of C. John Kronberg by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 11/06/2001)
132 RESPONSE by Kronberg Bagel Co. in opposition to [129-1] order (sll) (Entered: 11/19/2001)
133 RESPONSE by Kronberg Bagel Co. in opposition to [129-1] order (sll) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
134 RESPONSE by Kronberg Bagel Co. in opposition to [129-1] order (sll) (Entered: 11/20/2001)
135 AMENDED damages disclosures by Intervener Victoria Briggs and Resa Gaston (kma) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
136 RESPONSE by EEOC to [132-1] opposition response (sll) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
137 RESPONSE by EEOC to [134-1] opposition response (sll) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
138 RESPONSE by EEOC to [133-1] opposition response (sll) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
139 RESPONSE by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston to [134-1] opposition response (sll) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
140 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support for

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 16 of 21

12/10/2001 12/10/2001 12/14/2001
12/18/2001 12/19/2001 12/20/2001
12/28/2001 12/28/2001 12/28/2001 12/31/2001 01/10/2002 01/10/2002 01/10/2002 01/10/2002

sanctions against plaintiff EEOC for failure to comply with court order. (sll) (Entered: 12/10/2001)
141 EMERGENCY CONSENTED MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. CONSENTED to continue mediation (sll) (Entered: 12/11/2001)
142 ORDER granting [141-1] consent motion CONSENTED to continue mediation, resetting mediation conference for 1/14/02 ( Signed by Judge John E. Steele ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 12/11/2001)
143 EMERGENCY MOTION by EEOC with memorandum in support to extend time discovery deadline & all other subsequent scheduled dates as set forth in the parties' case management report and this court's case management and scheduling order (sll) (Entered: 12/14/2001)
144 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [140-1] motion for sanctions (sll) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
145 NOTICE of supplemental authority by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
146 ORDER that Defendant Kronberg Bagel Company, d/b/a Bakin' Bagels' Objections to Magistrate Judge Frazier's Order Regarding Continuation of Chris Kronberg Deposition (Doc. #132) filed 11/19/01, is overruled; Defendant's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Regarding Defendant's Second Set of Interrogatories (Doc. #133), filed 11/20/01, is overruled; and Defendant's Objections to Magistrate Judge Frazier's Order Regarding Interveners and Plaintiff's Joint Motion to Compel or, in the Alternative, Strike Affirmative Defenses (Doc. #134), filed 11/20/01, is overruled. ( Signed by Judge John E. Steele ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
147 RESPONSE by Kronberg Bagel Co. in opposition to [143-1] motion to extend time discovery deadline & all other subsequent scheduled dates (lap) (Entered: 12/31/2001)
148 PRETRIAL STATEMENT. (lap) (Entered: 12/31/2001)
149 PROPOSED jury instructions by Kronberg Bagel Co., EEOC, Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston (lap) (Entered: 12/31/2001)
149 PROPOSED verdict form filed by Kronberg Bagel Co., EEOC, Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston (lap) (Entered: 12/31/2001)
150 PARTIES' JOINT NOTICE of supplemental filing of amended pretrial stipulation by EEOC (sll) (Entered: 01/11/2002)
151 AMENDED PRETRIAL STATEMENT. (sll) (Entered: 01/11/2002)
152 PARTIES' PROPOSED voir dire questions by EEOC, Kronberg Bagel Co., Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston (sll) (Entered: 01/11/2002)
153 PROPOSED verdict form filed by EEOC, Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston, Jacqueline Speaker, Lauren Henderson and/or any other identified similarly situated females (sll) (Entered: 01/11/2002)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 17 of 21

01/10/2002 01/16/2002 01/18/2002 01/18/2002 01/18/2002 01/18/2002 01/18/2002 01/18/2002 01/18/2002
01/18/2002 01/18/2002 01/18/2002
01/18/2002 01/18/2002 01/23/2002

154 DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED verdict form filed by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 01/11/2002)
156 MEDIATION REPORT. Mediation conference held: 1/11/02. Robert Mckee, mediator. Hearing outcome: IMPASSE (bjt) (Entered: 01/18/2002)
155 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING: reset pretrial conference for 3:00 2/11/02 scheduled for Judge John E. Steele ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (bjt) (Entered: 01/18/2002)
157 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. in limine to exclude offensive verbal conduct of Kevin Healey not based on sex (bjt) (Entered: 01/18/2002)
158 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. in limine to exclude evidence concerning coworkers' complaints or opinions of discrimination against themselves or others (bjt) (Entered: 01/18/2002)
159 TRIAL BRIEF by Kronberg Bagel Co. (bjt) (Entered: 01/18/2002)
160 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support in limine to exclude statements and records from the Lee County EEOC office. (sll) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
161 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support in limine to exclude local agency and EEOC "cause" findings (sll) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
162 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support in limine to exclude evidence of consensual sexual relationship between nonparties Michael Deblasi and Samantha Butz. (sll) Modified on 01/24/2002 (Entered: 01/22/2002)
163 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support in limine to exclude evidence concerning use, sale, or purchase of illegal drugs by any member of Bakin' Bagels management. (sll) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
164 JOINT TRIAL BRIEF by EEOC, Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston (sll) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
165 MOTION by EEOC with memorandum in support in limine to exclude evidence of Jason Briggs, Victoria Briggs, and Lauren Adema's past drug use and/or arrests and/or convictions for drug related offenses (Proposed Order Attached) (sll) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
166 MOTION by EEOC with memorandum in support in limine to exclude evidence of witness Morris Sanchelli's past arrests for fighting (Proposed Order Attached) (sll) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
167 MOTION by EEOC with memorandum in support in limine to exclude evidence of Lauren Henderson's prior sexual conduct and abuse (Proposed Order Attached) (sll) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
168 NOTICE of filing deposition excerpts in support of motion in limine to exclude offensive verbal conduct of Kevin Healey not based on sex by

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 18 of 21

01/23/2002 01/23/2002 01/23/2002 01/24/2002 01/24/2002
01/28/2002 01/30/2002 01/30/2002 01/31/2002 01/31/2002 01/31/2002

Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
169 DEPOSITION EXCERPT of Lauren Joy Adema by Kronberg Bagel Co. re: [157-1] motion in limine to exclude offensive verbal conduct of Kevin Healey not based on sex Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
170 DEPOSITION EXCERPT of Clarence John Kronberg by Kronberg Bagel Co. re: [157-1] motion in limine to exclude offensive verbal conduct of Kevin Healey not based on sex Transcript filed separately. (sll) Modified on 01/23/2002 (Entered: 01/23/2002)
171 DEPOSITION EXCERPT of Michael Deblasi by Kronberg Bagel Co. re: [157-1] motion in limine to exclude offensive verbal conduct of Kevin Healey not based on sex Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
172 MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying [65-1] motion to dismiss the claims of Resa Gaston, denying [67-1] motion to dismiss claims of Resa Gaston, granting [54-1] motion for summary judgment ( Signed by Judge Kevin T. Duffy ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
173 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [96-1] motion for partial summary judgment. Defendant's First, Third and Seventh Affirmative Defenses are deemed withdrawn. Summary Judgment is granted on Defendant's Sixth Affirmative Defense for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The motions for summary judgment as to the remaining Affirmative Defenses are denied. Denying [88-1] motion for partial summary judgment, denying [90-1] motion for partial summary judgment ( Signed by Judge Kevin T. Duffy ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
174 MOTION by EEOC with memorandum in support for leave to file trial brief in excess of 20 pages (Proposed Order Attached) (sll) (Entered: 01/28/2002)
175 ORDER granting [174-1] motion for leave to file trial brief in excess of 20 pages ( Signed by Judge Kevin T. Duffy ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 01/30/2002)
176 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support to compel mental examination (sll) (Entered: 01/30/2002)
MOTION(S) referred: [176-1] motion to compel mental examination referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (sll) (Entered: 01/31/2002)
177 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [158-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning coworkers' complaints or opinions of discrimination against themselves or others (sll) (Entered: 01/31/2002)
178 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [157-1] motion in limine to exclude offensive verbal conduct of Kevin Healey not based on sex (sll) (Entered: 01/31/2002)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 19 of 21

01/31/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002
02/01/2002 02/04/2002 02/04/2002

183 ORDER resetting pretrial conference for 10:00 2/5/02 scheduled for Judge Kevin T. Duffy ( Signed by Judge Kevin T. Duffy ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
179 MEMORANDUM by Kronberg Bagel Co. in opposition to [167-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence of Lauren Henderson's prior sexual conduct and abuse (sll) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
180 NOTICE of filing deposition excerpts by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
181 DEPOSITION EXCERPT of Scott M. Anderson by Kronberg Bagel Co. re: [179-1] opposition memorandum Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
182 NOTICE of attached exhibits to renewed motion to compel mental examination by Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
184 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [161-1] motion in limine to exclude local agency and EEOC "cause" findings (sll) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
185 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [160-1] motion in limine to exclude statements and records (sll) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
186 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [162-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence of consensual sexual relationship (sll) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
187 RESPONSE by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston in opposition to [157-1] motion in limine to exclude offensive verbal conduct of Kevin Healey not based on sex (sll) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
188 RESPONSE by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston in opposition to [161-1] motion in limine to exclude local agency and EEOC "cause" findings (sll) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
189 RESPONSE by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston in opposition to [162-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence of consensual sexual relationship (sll) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
190 RESPONSE by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston in opposition to [158-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning coworkers' complaints or opinions of discrimination against themselves or others (sll) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
191 RESPONSE by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston in opposition to [160-1] motion in limine to exclude statements and records (sll) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
192 RESPONSE by Kronberg Bagel Co. to [166-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence of witness Morris Sanchelli's past arrests for fighting (sll) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
193 ADDENDUM by Kronberg Bagel Co. to [151-1] statement (sll)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 20 of 21

02/05/2002 02/05/2002 02/05/2002 02/05/2002 02/05/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002 02/06/2002
02/08/2002 02/08/2002 02/08/2002 02/19/2002 02/21/2002

(Entered: 02/04/2002)
194 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [176-1] motion to compel mental examination (sll) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
195 RESPONSE by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston to [176-1] motion to compel mental examination (sll) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
196 ORDER denying [176-1] motion to compel mental examination ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
MOTION(S) no longer referred: (sll) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
200 PRETRIAL (VIDEO) CONFERENCE held on 2/5/02 @ 10:00 a.m. before Judge Kevin T. Duffy Court Reporter: Realtime Reporters (sll) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
197 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. to withdraw [163-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning use, sale, or purchase of illegal drugs (sll) (Entered: 02/07/2002)
198 MOTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. with memorandum in support to strike trial witnesses (sll) (Entered: 02/07/2002)
201 ORDER granting [157-1] motion in limine to exclude offensive verbal conduct of Kevin Healey not based on sex, granting [158-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning coworkers' complaints or opinions of discrimination against themselves or others, granting [160-1] motion in limine to exclude statements and records, granting [161-1] motion in limine to exclude local agency and EEOC "cause" findings, granting [162-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence of consensual sexual relationship, granting [163-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning use, sale, or purchase of illegal drugs, granting [165-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence of Jason Briggs, Victoria Briggs, and Lauren Adema's past drug use and/or arrests and/or convictions for drug related offenses, granting [166-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence of witness Morris Sanchelli's past arrests for fighting ( Signed by Judge Kevin T. Duffy ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
199 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Jury trial set for 3/12/02 ; Scheduled for Judge Kevin T. Duffy ( signed by Judge Kevin T. Duffy ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
202 OBJECTION by Kronberg Bagel Co. to [196-1] order (sll) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
202 APPEAL of Magistrate Judge ruling re: [196-1] order to District Court filed by Kronberg Bagel Co. . (sll) (Entered: 02/08/2002)
203 RESPONSE by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston, EEOC to [202-1] objection (sll) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
204 MOTION by EEOC, Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston with memorandum in support for clarification of [201-1] order (sll) (Entered: 02/21/2002)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 21 of 21

02/27/2002 02/28/2002
02/28/2002 02/28/2002 03/14/2002 03/14/2002 03/14/2002 03/14/2002

205 NOTICE of filing attached transcript excerpts from Court proceedings that are a supplement to plaintiffs previously filed motion for clarification of the Court's Order by EEOC (sll) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
206 ORDER denying [143-1] motion to extend time discovery deadline & all other subsequent scheduled dates, granting [198-1] motion to strike trial witnesses granting [202-1] Magistrate motion ( Signed by Judge Kevin T. Duffy ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
207 ORDER granting [204-1] motion for clarification of [201-1] order ( Signed by Judge Kevin T. Duffy ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
208 TRANSCRIPT of pre-trial conference (via video conferencing) held on 2/5/02 before Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy. Transcript filed separately. (sll) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
209 AGREED NOTICE of filing of consent decree by Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston (sll) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
210 CONSENT DECREE by EEOC, Victoria Briggs, Resa Gaston, Kronberg Bagel Co. (sll) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [210-1] decree consent ( Signed by Judge Kevin T. Duffy ) ctc (sll) (Entered: 03/15/2002)
CASE CLOSED. (sll) (Entered: 03/19/2002)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

06/12/2007 15:28:12

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:00-cv-00409-JES

Billable Pages: 12

Cost:

0.96

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?112308776343941-L_353_0-1

6/12/2007


[CONTENT] September 2000 | Miami | FL | EEOC | Kronberg Bagel Company | District Court | the Middle District | Florida ||| EEOC | three | Title VII ||| November 2000 | two |||  ||| March 2002 ||| March 2002 ||| 45,000.00 |||  ||| November 2001 [SUMMARY] In September 2000 the Miami, FL office of the EEOC brought this suit against Kronberg Bagel Company d/b/a Bakin' Bagels in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In its complaint, the EEOC alleged that the defendant subjected three female employees to sexual harassment and constructive discharge in violation of Title VII. In November 2000, two of the charging parties intervened in the suit.

The parties were involved in numerous discovery disputes and each filed a partial motion for summary judgment. The case remained open, however, and a jury trial was set for March 2002. The parties eventually resolved the case in March 2002 before going to trial by the entry of a consent decree. The defendant was required to pay $45,000.00 to resolve the litigation. It was also required to provide sexual harassment training to its management. Defendant Bakin' Bagels ceased its business operations on November 2001; therefore, the decree's provisions on training will be applicable if and when it reopens.

