Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

JAXINNSINC

)

D/B/A SPINDRFITER HOTEL

)

)

Defendant.

)

--------------------------------)

H- CI~3I~:

AoCLTfI-OCNv

N-Oq.

.rf 0_
,1\

-r_I/~ N1
..J '{)" I

tr1

COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and to provide appropriate relief to Malerie Meyers who was adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater particularity in paragraph 7, the Commission alleges that the Defendant Employer subjected Ms. Meyers to unlawful race discrimination when it terminated her employment because of her association with individuals of the Black race.
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)(l) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(l) 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 committed within the
1

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 2 of 5
jurisdiction of the Untied States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville 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, Jax Inns Inc. d/b/a Spindrifter Hotel, a Florida corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Orange Park, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times Jax Inns, Inc., d/b/a Spindrifter Hotel has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Malerie Meyers filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least January 2003, Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Orange Park, Florida location in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a).
a. Malerie Meyers was hired by Defendant corporation in October 2002 b. In December of 2002 Malerie Meyers introduced her bi-racial children to
2

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 3 of 5
Defendant's Management. c. The following week Defendant's Management made several derogatory
comments about persons of the Black race to Malerie Meyers. d. On or about January 17, 2003, Defendant terminated Malerie Meyers
because of her association with persons of the Black race. 8. The effect of the conduct complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Malerie Meyers of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her association with individuals of the Black race. 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 done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Malerie Meyers.
PRA YER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant, from engaging in the termination of an individual's employment because of that individual's association with members ofa specific race and/or any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race. B. Order Defendant, to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees regardless of race and/or his or her association with individuals of a specific race and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful
3

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 4 of 5
employment practices. C. Order Defendant to make whole Malerie Meyers by providing appropriate back pay
with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement or front pay.
D. Order Defendant to make whole Malerie Meyers by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including out of pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to make whole Malerie Meyers by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, and loss ofenjoyment oflife, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant to pay Malerie Meyers 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. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. Respectfully Submitted, ERIC S. DRIEBAND General Counsel JAMES L. LEE
4

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 5 of 5
Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney MICHAEL 1. FARRELL
upervisory Trial Attorney
f
OWN
One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2700 Miami, Florida 33131 Phone: (305) 530-6012 Fax: (305) 536-4494
5

 </s> Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 15 Filed 11/30/2004 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

CaseNo.: 3:04-CV-000978-JHM-MMH

MALERIE MEYERS,

Intervenor,

v.

SPINDRIFTER HOTEL/JAX INNS, INC.,

Defendant.
----------------------------------/
INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

JURISDICTION AND PARTIES

l. This suit is brought and jurisdiction lies pursuant to §706 of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5. This Court has original

jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §1343(a)(4). This suit is also brought

pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. 760 et seq., over which this Court

has supplemental jurisdiction.

2. Intervenor, Malerie Meyers, is a citizen of the United States and the State of

Florida, and at all times material to this complaint was a resident of Clay County, Florida.

3. Defendant, Spindrifter Hotel/Jax Inns, Inc., is a foreign corporation licensed

to do business in the State of Florida and in the city of Jacksonville, Florida.

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 15 Filed 11/30/2004 Page 2 of 6
4. Defendant, Spindrifter Hotel/Jax Inns, Inc., at all times material to this Complaint, has employed fifteen (15) or more employees, and is an "employer" within the meaning of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 5. The Intervenor has filed timely administrative charges of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The EEOC has filed a Civil Action with the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, wherein Intervenor has filed a Motion to Intervene. All of the discriminatory employment practices alleged herein were committed within the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. 6. Intervenor also dual filed her charge of employment discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Intervenor has complied with all conditions precedent before filing suit under the Florida Civil Rights Act in that this lawsuit was filed after this matter had been pending before the Florida Commission on Human Relations for more than 180 days. This lawsuit was further filed within four years of the discriminatory acts complained of herein.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. Ms. Meyers worked for the Defendant's"Spindrifter Hotel" (the hotel is owned by Jax Inns, Inc.) in Orange Park, Florida, in the position ofDirector of Sales, until she was unlawfully terminated on January 17, 2003. After Intervenor was initially hired, Jitendra
2

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 15 Filed 11/30/2004 Page 3 of 6
"Jay" Patel had become the new owner ofthe hotel, and Intervenor's direct supervisor at the time of her termination was Susan Soltys.
8. On or about December of2002, Ms. Meyers introduced Jay to her two children, who are bi-racial, and Mr. Patel seemed shocked. Thereafter, Mr. Patel treated Intervenor differently and made several racist comments. For example, Mr. Patel would tell Intervenor "I know you like black people, but . . ." and proceeded to tell her how black people supposedly cannot be trusted, that they don't pay their loans, etc. He said that if you give black employees their pay up front, they will leave without doing the job. He also would say that black women seemed all right, but that black men cannot be trusted.
9. Also, shortly after he learned that Intervenor's children were bi-racial, Intervenor learned that the employer was interviewing applicants for the "Director of Sales" position. Intervenor also learned that the employer was advertising for her position.
10. On or about January 17,2003, Intervenor was told by Susan Soltys that she was being terminated, and she was told that the reason was the hotel could no longer be marketed since it was under renovation. Afterwards, Intervenor obtained an e-mail from another employee indicating that the employer claimed she was terminated for performance related reasons such as absenteeism and tardiness. Ms. Soltys had indicated to Plaintiffthat she did not want to fire her and that it was the decision of Mr. Patel. Any reasons given for Ms. Meyers' termination are merely pretext for unlawful discrimination based on race.
3

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 15 Filed 11/30/2004 Page 4 of 6
COUNT I UNLAWFUL RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED IN 1991, 42 U.S.C. 2000e ET SEQ. 11. Intervenor restates and realleges each and every factual allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 10. 12. Race was a substantial motivating factor in the Defendant's decision to terminate Intervenor's employment. Moreover, Defendant would not have made the same decision in the absence of this unlawful motivating factor. Any reasons articulated by Defendant for the termination are merely pretext for discrimination based on race. 13. Defendant acted with malice and with a reckless disregard for Intervenor's rights under federal law. WHEREFORE, Intervenor demands a trial by jury and relief in the form ofeconomic damages, backpay and frontpay, compensatory damages and emotional distress damages, lost benefits, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs with prejudgment interest thereon, injunctive relief including reinstatement, and any other such relief that Intervenor may be entitled to under the law or in equity.
COUNT II UNLAWFUL RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992, FLA. STAT. 760 ET SEQ. 14. Intervenor restates and realleges each and every factual allegation contained
4

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 15 Filed 11/30/2004 Page 5 of 6
in Paragraphs 1 through 10. 15. Race was a substantial motivating factor in the Defendant's decision to
terminate Intervenor's employment. Moreover, Defendant would not have made the same decision in the absence of this unlawful motivating factor. Any reasons articulated by Defendant for the termination are merely pretext for discrimination based on race.
16. Defendant acted with malice and with a reckless disregard for Intervenor's rights under state law.
17. Defendant's discrimination caused, continues to cause, and will cause Intervenor to suffer substantial damages for lost wages, and other pecuniary losses, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.
WHEREFORE, Intervenor demands a trial by jury and reliefin the form ofeconomic damages, backpay and frontpay, compensatory damages and emotional distress damages, lost benefits, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs with prejudgment interest thereon, injunctive relief including reinstatement, and any other such relief that Intervenor may be entitled to under the law or in equity.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Intervenor hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
5

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 15 Filed 11/30/2004 Page 6 of 6 Respectfully submitted, ARCHIBALD J. THOMAS, III, P.A. Suite 1640, Riverplace Tower 1301 Riverplace Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (904) 396-2322
(904P;:~
Archibald J. Thomas, III Florida Bar No. 231657 P. Daniel Williams Florida Bar No. 0036625 Trial Attorneys for Intervenor
6

 </s> Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 32 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Plaintiff,

MALERIE MEYERS,

Case No. 3:04-cv-978-J-16MMH

Intervenor,

vs.

JAX INNS, INC., d/b/a Spindrifter Hotel,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff and Intervenor’s Joint Motion for

Protective Order and to Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas and Memorandum in Support

Thereof (Doc. No. 31; Motion) filed on July 28, 2005. In the Motion, Plaintiff and Intervenor

seek an order from the Court “to protect Ms. Meyers from the unwarranted release of her

personnel records and to Quash Defendant’s third party subpoenas served upon UBS Paine

Webber, Randstad (p/k/a) Accustaff Inc, and Q, The Sports Club.” Motion at 1. Plaintiff and

Intervenor assert that these subpoenas to Ms. Meyers former employers are overbroad, not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and seek private and

confidential information regarding Ms. Meyers. See id. However, It is unclear from the

Motion whether the prior employers have objected or indicated an intention not to comply

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 32 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 2 of 3
with the subpoenas in accordance with Rule 45(c)(2)(B), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)). Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the Court will stay the discovery at issue until the Motion is resolved. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff and Intervenor’s Joint Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Doc. No. 31) is GRANTED, in part, to the extent that the discovery at issue in the Motion is hereby STAYED pending further order of the Court. To the extent that the subpoenaed parties have not produced the requested documents, Defendants shall immediately instruct them that they need not produce the responsive documents until further order of the Court. On the other hand, if subpoenaed documents have been produced to Defendant’s counsel, its counsel shall maintain the records, but not inspect or review the documents or permit anyone to inspect or review the documents until further order of the Court. 2. Otherwise, Plaintiff and Intervenor’s Joint Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Doc. No. 31) is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.
-2-

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 32 Filed 07/29/2005 Page 3 of 3 3. Defendant shall provide its response to Plaintiff and Intervenor’s Joint Motion
for Protective Order and to Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Doc. No. 31) no later than the close of business on August 15, 2005.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on July 29, 2005.
ja Copies to: Counsel of Record
-3-

 </s> Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 34 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

MALERIE MEYERS,

Case No. 3:04-cv-978-J-16MMH

Intervenor,

vs.

JAX INNS, INC., d/b/a Spindrifter Hotel,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff and Intervenor’s Joint Motion for

Protective Order and to Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas and Memorandum in Support

Thereof (Doc. No. 31; Motion) filed on July 28, 2005. Defendant opposes, in part, the relief

requested in the Motion. See Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff and Intervenor’s Joint

Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas (Doc. No. 33; Response),

filed on August 15, 2005.

On July 7, 2005 and July 11, 2005, Defendant served a total of three subpoenas upon

Intervenor Malerie Meyers’ former employers. See Motion at 2 & Ex. A. The subpoenas

requested any and all documents pertaining to the employment of Malerie Meyers. See id.

Upon receipt of the subpoenas, Plaintiff notified Defendant that it objected to the subpoenas

and asked Defendant to withdraw them. See Motion at 2-3. On July 20, 2005, Defendant

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 34 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 2 of 4

notified Plaintiff that it would modify the subpoenas to narrow the information sought. See id. at 3; Response at 4, Ex. 4. Plaintiff and Intervenor contend that the subpoenas should be quashed because they are still overbroad, not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and continue to seek private and confidential information about Ms. Meyers. See id.
Defendant contends that on July 20, 2005, when it informed Plaintiff that it would modify the subpoenas to narrow the scope of the information sought, it also asked that counsel for Plaintiff “contact it to discuss its proposal so that the parties could resolve their differences absent judicial intervention.” Response at 4 & Ex. 4. However, Defendant asserts that it did not receive a response to this correspondence. See Response at 4. Defendant requests the Court deny the Motion and allow it to revise the subpoenas in the manner proposed to Plaintiff in its July 20, 2005 correspondence. See id. at 9.
Upon review of the subpoenas, the Court agrees that the subpoenas, in their current form, are overbroad. Consequently, the Court will grant the Motion to the extent that the subpoenas served upon UBS Paine Webber, Randstad (p/k/a) Accustaff Inc., and Q, The Sports Club will be quashed.1 However, as discussed above, Defendant has agreed to serve more narrowly tailored subpoenas. The undersigned has reviewed the proposed modification to the subpoenas and finds that the subpoenas, as modified, would not be overbroad and could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence pursuant to Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)). Therefore, Defendant will be permitted to serve

1

The Court need not address the issue of standing because, as discussed infra,

Defendant agreed to limit its subpoenas instead of contesting standing.

-2-

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 34 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 3 of 4
modified subpoenas upon UBS Paine Webber, Randstad (p/k/a) Accustaff Inc., and Q, The Sports Club. The subpoenas shall only seek the following information with regard to Malerie Meyers’ employment: performance appraisals, reprimands, attendance records, rates of pay and dates of employment.
Finally, this Court will take this opportunity to remind the parties of their obligation to confer “in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by [any] motion” before filing it. See Local Rule 3.01(g), United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)). The Court is concerned that the instant Motion may have been filed before responding to Defendant’s July 20, 2005 offer to modify the subpoenas was considered. Both parties are cautioned that, in the future, they should fully exhaust all efforts to resolve a dispute prior to filing a motion.
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff and Intervenor’s Joint Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Doc. No. 31) is GRANTED to the extent that the subpoenas served upon UBS Paine Webber, Randstad (p/k/a) Accustaff Inc., and Q, The Sports Club are QUASHED. Defendant may serve modified subpoenas upon these entities in accordance with this Order. In addition, Defendant shall immediately notify the nonparties of the content of this Order and promptly return any documents received pursuant to the subpoena without further inspection.
-3-

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 34 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 4 of 4 2. Otherwise, Plaintiff and Intervenor’s Joint Motion for Protective Order and to
Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas (Doc. No. 31) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida on August 24, 2005.
ja Copies to: Counsel of Record
-4-

 </s> Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 43 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

MALERIE MEYERS,

Intervenor,

vs.

Case No. 3:04-cv-978-J-16MMH

JAX INNS, INC., d/b/a Spindrifter Hotel,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel the

Intervenor’s Deposition and for Order Enlarging the Discovery Period (Doc. No. 37;

Motion) filed on September 15, 2005. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. See Plaintiff and

Intervenor’s Joint Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel the

Intervenor’s Deposition and for Order Enlarging the Discovery Period (Doc. No. 42;

Joint Response). The Motion is now ripe for review.

This employment discrimination case was filed by the EEOC (Plaintiff) against

Defendant on September 29, 2004. See Complaint (Doc. No. 1). On November 30,

2004, Malerie Meyers received approval from this Court to join the lawsuit as an

Intervenor. See Order (Doc. No. 11). During the pendency of the suit, numerous

attempts apparently have been made to set dates for the depositions of the Intervenor

and certain other witnesses. See Motion at 2-4; Response at 2-3. However, due to

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 43 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 2 of 4
scheduling conflicts, several depositions, including that of the Intervenor, could not be conducted prior to the discovery deadline of September 30, 2005. See Motion at 5. Accordingly, the parties have agreed that an extension of the discovery deadline is warranted; however, they disagree as to the length of the enlargement and the scope of discovery which may be conducted during the enlarged discovery period. See Motion at 5-6; Response at 6.
Defendant is seeking a 90 day enlargement of the discovery deadline during which there would be no restriction on the discovery conducted, as well as a 90 day extension of all other deadlines set forth in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 16; Scheduling Order). See Motion at 6. Further, Defendant is asking the Court to compel the deposition of the Intervenor. See id. In response, Plaintiff and the Intervenor argue that a full 90 days is not needed to complete discovery and have agreed to only a 60 day extension of the discovery period. See Response at 5-7. They suggest that such an extension would not require any change to the other pretrial deadlines. See id. at 6-7. Additionally, Plaintiff and the Intervenor argue that an order compelling the Intervenor’s deposition is unwarranted because Defendant has not yet noticed her deposition and Plaintiff has agreed to produce the Intervenor for deposition. See id. at 4-5. Finally, Plaintiff and Intervenor ask the Court to impose sanctions on Defendant for bringing the Motion. See id. at 7.
The Court first turns to the request for an extension of time to complete discovery. Upon review of the Motion and Response, it appears the parties have shown good cause to extend the discovery deadline. Having considered the discovery
-2-

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 43 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 3 of 4

the parties assert will need to be concluded during the extension, and the scheduling conflicts that are already anticipated, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to the extent that the discovery deadline will be continued to December 13, 2005. The Court will impose no restriction, beyond those agreed to by the parties in the Case Management Report (Doc. No. 14), on the nature of discovery conducted during this period. In light of the Court’s extension of the discovery deadline, the remaining pretrial motion deadlines will also need to be extended. The undersigned will therefore continue the deadline for dispositive motions sua sponte. The parties shall file all dispositive motions no later than January 18, 2006. An amended Scheduling Order setting forth revised pretrial conference and trial dates will be entered by the presiding District Judge.
The Motion also seeks an order compelling the deposition of the Intervenor. However, the Intervenor has not failed to appear for a deposition. The deposition is not currently set1 and both Plaintiff and the Intervenor have agreed to schedule that deposition at a mutually agreeable time. See Response at 5. With the enlargement of the discovery deadline, the Court sees no reason to conclude that the parties will not be able to arrive at dates amenable to all schedules to conduct this deposition. Under these circumstances, an order compelling the Intervenor to appear for a deposition is premature. Therefore, to the extent that the Motion seeks an order compelling the Intervenor’s deposition, it will be denied.

1

The Court recognizes the Intervenor’s deposition was noticed for July 12, July 28, and

August 25, 2005 but for various reasons each time it was canceled. See Motion at 2-3. However, at this

time, the Intervenor’s deposition is not currently noticed.

-3-

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 43 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 4 of 4
As the Motion will be granted, in part, the undersigned concluded that the award of sanctions requested by Plaintiff and the Intervenor is unwarranted. Thus, the request will be denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Intervenor’s Deposition and for Order Enlarging the Discovery Period (Doc. No. 37; Motion) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
a. The parties shall have up to and including December 13, 2005 to complete discovery.
b. The parties shall file any dispositive motions no later than January 18, 2006.
c. The Motion is otherwise DENIED. 2. Plaintiff and Intervenor’s request for sanctions is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 11th day of October, 2005.
lc2
Copies to: Counsel of Record
-4-

 </s> Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 44 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

MALERIE MEYERS,

Intervenor,

vs.

Case No. 3:04-cv-978-J-16MMH

JAX INNS, INC., d/b/a Spindrifter Hotel,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for In Camera Inspection,

to Compel Production of Documents, and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Doc. No. 35;

Motion) filed on September 13, 2005. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. See Plaintiff’s

Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for In Camera Inspection, to Compel

Production of Documents, and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Doc. No. 38; Response).

In the Motion, Defendant requests that the Court conduct an in camera review of

documents Plaintiff withheld from production on the basis of a privilege and compel

production of any document wrongfully withheld. See Motion at 3, 8-11. Defendant also

seeks an order permitting it to re-depose a representative of Plaintiff, Investigator Mack, with

regard to certain documents that were belatedly produced. See id at 3, 10-11. Finally,

Defendant seeks an award of attorney’s fees and costs. See id at 3, 11. Upon review of the

Motion, this Court issued an Order (Doc. No. 36) on September 15, 2005 taking the Motion

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 44 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 2 of 10

under advisement, limiting Plaintiffs response time to September 22, 2005, and, to expedite any in camera review of the documents listed in the privilege log if warranted, requiring Plaintiff to provide the Court with those documents no later than September 22, 2005. See Order at 2.1 The Motion is now ripe for review.
On March 7, 2005, Plaintiff provided Defendant a log of all documents withheld from production with applicable privileges identified. See Response Exh. 1. Defendant claims that during the deposition of Investigator Mack, on July 17, 2005, Defendant first learned that certain documents, specifically the Investigator’s Notes, listed in the log as privileged under governmental deliberative process, contained “solely factual information.” See Motion at 12.2 Thus, on July 29, 2005, out of concern that Plaintiff improperly asserted the governmental deliberative process privilege, Defendant asked Plaintiff to file a joint motion requesting the Court perform an in camera inspection of the entire log. See Motion at 7. Plaintiff replied on August 10, 2005 that it would not agree to a complete in camera inspection of the log but would be willing to discuss specific objections to any document in the log. See Response at 4. Additionally, while still maintaining that the Investigator’s Notes were properly withheld, Plaintiff attached them to the letter along with a revised log. See id.

1

Although Plaintiff’s Response complied with the Order, they failed to include a

signed declaration with the documents so the Court entered another Order directing

them to do so. See Doc. No. 40. Plaintiff complied with this Order on September

27, 2005. See Doc. No. 41.

2

Plaintiff appears to argue that Defendant is tardy in alleging Plaintiff’s claims of

governmental deliberative process privilege are unfounded. See Response at 3.

The Court finds this argument unpersuasive as it was not until the deposition of

Investigator Mack that an issue arose concerning the applicability of the withheld

documents. Until that time, Defendant properly accepted the assertions of privilege

made by Plaintiff.

-2-

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 44 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 3 of 10
Notwithstanding, Defendant continued to be concerned about the remaining withheld documents, and on September 12th and 13th, 2005 the parties discussed this issue but were unable to come to a resolution. See id. at 4. Thereafter, Defendant filed this Motion on September 22, 2005.
Plaintiff opposes all of the relief requested in the Motion. See Response. Preliminarily, Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to comply with the applicable procedures under the Local Rules, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)) before filing the Motion. See id. at 6-8. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not asserted an adequate factual basis to warrant an in camera review by the Court of any documents withheld from production. See id. at 4-6. The Court will consider Plaintiff’s procedural contentions before addressing the substantive objection to the relief requested.
Plaintiff first argues that Defendant filed the Motion without complying with applicable procedures. See Response at 6-7. Pursuant to Rule 37, a motion to compel must contain a statement that the movant has “attempted to confer with the party not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court action.” 28 U.S.C. § 37(a)(2). Local Rule 3.01(g) also provides that parties must make a good faith attempt to resolve any issue before filing a motion with the Court. The undersigned finds based upon the specific circumstances before the Court in this matter, that the July 29, 2005 letter and the two conversations regarding this dispute constitute a sufficient good faith attempt to resolve the issue. Accordingly, the Motion is properly before the Court.
-3-

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 44 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 4 of 10
Plaintiff next argues that Defendant did not comply with Local Rule 3.04. See Response at 7. This Local Rule provides: ”Motions to compel discovery . . . shall (1) quote in full each interrogatory, question on deposition, request for admission or request for production to which the motion is addressed; (2) quote in full the objection and grounds therefor as stated by the opposing party . . . .” Local Rule 3.04(a). Although Defendant did not identify the request for production to which each of Plaintiff’s allegedly privileged documents correspond, this failure is not fatal. The question before the Court is whether the documents are, in fact, protected by the privilege asserted by Plaintiff, not whether they are responsive to any particular request for production. Indeed, in listing the documents on the privilege log, Plaintiff acknowledged that they were responsive to at least one of Defendant’s requests for production. The inclusion of the specific requests for production and Plaintiff’s response to them would add little to the Court’s analysis. Additionally, after review of the deposition of Investigator Mack and the letter dated July 29, 2005, the Court finds that Defendant is concerned with all of the Plaintiff’s remaining assertions of governmental deliberative process privilege. No single document can be identified. Therefore, the Court is not persuaded that Defendant failed to comply with Local Rule 3.04(a) in filing this Motion.
Turning to the substance of the Motion, Defendant argues that an in camera review of the documents identified in the log is necessary to ensure Plaintiff’s claims of governmental deliberative process privilege are appropriate. See id. at 8-10. Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5)
When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged . . . the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents . . . not produced . . . in a manner that, without
-4-

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 44 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 5 of 10
revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. 28 U.S.C. § 26(b)(5). The Supreme Court “has long held the view that in camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means of dealing with claims of governmental privilege.” Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 405-06 (1976). Moreover, where parties disagree as to claims of privilege the Court may order an in camera review. See United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 568-69 (1989) (finding that the Supreme Court “has approved the practice of requiring parties who seek to avoid disclosure of documents to make the documents available for in camera inspection”), In re: Sealed Case (Medical Records), 381 F.3d 1205, 1218 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (remanding the case for the district court to determine privilege and recommending use of a privilege log and/or in camera review), Freiermuth v. PPG Indus., Inc., 218 F.R.D. 694, 696 (N.D. Ala. 2003) (finding in camera inspection of the document in question was appropriate because the Court was unable to “discern whether the asserted privileges applied”). It appears from the Motion and Response that both parties believe the standard expressed in Zolin governs the determination of whether an in camera inspection of documents withheld by Plaintiff on the basis of privilege is warranted in this action. See Motion at 8, Response at 4. However, Zolin involved a determination of the applicability of the crime fraud exception justifying a review of documents otherwise properly withheld pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. See Zolin 491 U.S. at 571-572. Zolin instructs that in requesting a review of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, a party must show an adequate factual basis that an “in camera review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies.” Id. at 572. Here,
-5-

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 44 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 6 of 10
Defendant disputes the applicability of the governmental deliberative process privilege upon which Plaintiff relies. Thus, the issue is whether a privilege applies to the documents at all, not whether it can be overcome. Accordingly, the Court is not entirely persuaded that the Zolin standard applies to this matter. See Avery Dennison Corp. v. Four Pillars, 190 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.D.C. 1999) (finding that the Zolin standard did not apply to the instant case because it “has nothing to do with the crime fraud exception”), Fed. Election Comm’n v. Christian Coal., 178 F.R.D. 61, 69 (E.D. Va. 1998) (limiting Zolin to cases involving the crime fraud exception), aff’d in part, modified in part, 178 F.R.D. 456 (E.D. Va. 1998), Parisi v. Rochester Cardiothoractic Assocs., 159 F.R.D. 406, 407 n.1 (W.D. N.Y. 1995) (concluding the Zolin threshold finding inapplicable because the instant case did not involve the crime fraud exception).
However, even assuming, arguendo, Zolin does apply to this case, the Court finds that Defendant has shown an adequate factual basis to establish that an in camera review is appropriate. First, in Investigator Mack’s deposition, he, the author of the notes at issue, unequivocally stated that the witness interview documents he prepared contained only facts given by the witness. See Motion Exh. 5 at 35. Nonetheless, Plaintiff continued to argue the interview documents were privileged. Id. at 35-36. Second, it appears Plaintiff only agreed to produce the witness interview documents after Defendant stated its intention to file a Motion to Compel Production requesting an in camera review of all documents withheld by Plaintiff on the basis of governmental privilege. See Motion Exhs. 6 and 7. Third, while Plaintiff did produce the witness interview documents, it still contends the documents are privileged. See Motion Exh. 7. However, after review of the investigator’s witness notes
-6-

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 44 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 7 of 10

(Motion Exh. 7 at 46-67) and the testimony of Investigator Mack, the Court finds these documents contain purely factual information and are not protected under any governmental deliberative process privilege. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds Defendant has shown an adequate factual basis for the Court to conduct an in camera review of the remaining documents withheld from production by Plaintiff pursuant to the governmental deliberative process privilege.3
The Court now must consider whether the documents withheld by Plaintiff on the basis of the deliberative process privilege are properly withheld from disclosure. The deliberative process privilege protects government documents “reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” Moye, O’Brien, O’Rourke, Hogan, & Pickert v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 376 F.3d 1270, 1277 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150 (1975)). The United States Supreme Court has determined that for a document to be protected under the deliberative process privilege, that document must be both “predecisional” and “deliberative.” Department of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n., 532 U.S. 1, 8, 121 S.Ct. 1060 (2001). A document is considered to be predecisional if it is prepared for the purpose of assisting an agency decision maker in making a decision and may include “recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions and other subjective documents which reflect the personal opinions of the writer.” Moye, 376 F.3d at 1277. The privilege will not, however, extend to

3

Because Defendant only challenges Plaintiff’s claim of governmental deliberative

process privilege, the Court will only review documents identified as being withheld

under governmental deliberative process in the log.

-7-

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 44 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 8 of 10
documents which are peripheral to the decision or which are preliminary to the decision making process. See id. at 1277-78. In addition, the document must be deliberative, which means that a disclosure of the document would expose the decision making process of the agency such that it would undermine an agency’s ability to freely and fully explore all aspects of the matter before it. See id. at 1278. The Eleventh Circuit has noted that the purpose of the deliberative process privilege “is to ensure that agencies are not forced to operate in a fishbowl.” Id. (citing Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Department of Justice, 917 F.2d 571, 573 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). Thus, materials reflecting the deliberative or policy making process are protected while factual data is not protected. See id. at 1278. Utilizing the parameters set forth above, the Court conducted an in camera review of the withheld documents. Having done so, the undersigned finds Plaintiff appropriately asserted the governmental deliberative process privilege as to the remaining documents withheld from production. Therefore, Defendant’s request to compel production of documents will be denied.
In the Motion, Defendant also seeks leave to re-depose Investigator Mack with regard to any documents the Court might order Plaintiff to produce as well as the belatedly produced documents. See Motion at 3. Plaintiff responds by noting that it has already agreed to permit Defendant to re-depose Investigator Mack with regard to the belatedly produced documents. See Response at 1, 9. As explained supra, the Court has concluded that the remaining documents withheld by Plaintiff need not be produced. In light of the Court’s ruling regarding the remaining withheld documents, Defendant’s only basis for seeking to re-depose Investigator Mack is the belatedly produced documents. Plaintiff has
-8-

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 44 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 9 of 10

agreed to this request. Thus, Defendant’s request to re-depose Investigator Mack will be granted, but only to the extent that Defendant will be permitted to re-depose Investigator Mack with regard to the belatedly produced documents as previously agreed by the parties. See Motion at 12 n.2. Otherwise, the motion to compel will be denied.
Finally, Defendant requests an award of attorney’s fees and costs associated with preparing the Motion and taking the supplemental deposition of Investigator Mack. With regard to the request for fees and costs incurred in preparing the Motion, Rule 37 provides for sanctions if the motion to compel is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 37(a)(4). Because Defendant’s request to compel any further production of documents was denied, its request for attorney’s fees and costs associated with preparing the Motion will be denied.4 The request for attorney’s fees and costs associated with the supplemental deposition of Investigator Mack will be denied without prejudice, at this time, but may be renewed at the conclusion of this proceeding.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Defendant’s Motion for In Camera Inspection, to Compel Production of Documents, and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Doc. No. 35) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
1. Defendant’s request for in camera inspection is GRANTED.

4

Although the Court is granting the Motion to the extent that Plaintiff will be

permitted to re-depose Investigator Mack, the Court finds an award of fees

and costs is not warranted as Plaintiff previously agreed to permit this deposition.

-9-

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 44 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 10 of 10
2. Defendant’s request to compel production of documents is DENIED. 3. Defendant’s request for a supplemental deposition of Investigator Mack is
GRANTED to the extent that Defendant may re-depose Investigator Mack with regard to the belatedly produced documents and any issues raised by those documents. 4. Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs associated with bringing Defendant’s Motion for In Camera Inspection, to Compel Production of Documents, and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED. 5. Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs associated with the supplemental deposition of Mr. Mack is DENIED, without prejudice. 6. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 14th day of October, 2005.
lc2 Copies to: Counsel of Record
-10-

 </s> Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 1 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 63-2 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 2 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

u.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
PLAINTIFF,
MALERIE MEYERS,
INTERVENOR
v.

Case No. 3:04-cv-978-J-16MMH

JAX INNS INC. D/B/A SPINDRIFTER HOTEL
----------------------------~/
CONSENT DECREE
1. This Consent Decree is entered into by and between Plaintiff, the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission" or "EEOC").

Plaintiff Intervenor, Malerie Meyers (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff Intervenor" or

"Ms. Meyers") and the Defendant, Jax Inns. Inc. d/b/a Spindrifier Hotel (hereinafter

referred to as "Defendant" or "Jax Inns"). The Commission, the Intervenor, and Jax Inns

are collectively referred to as the "Parties".

2. The Commission filed this action on September 30, 2004 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race, and to provide appropriate relief to Malerie Meyers, who was adversely affected by such practices.

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 2 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 63-2 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 3 of 15
3. The court granted Plaintiff-Intervenor's Motion to Intervene in the above-styled case. Plaintiff-Intervenor's Complaint alleged that Jax Inns violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. Section 2000(e) et seq. ("Title VII") and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and various other causes of action grounded upon the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
4. Jax Inn Inc. denies and continues to deny any wrong doing.
5. In the interest of resolving this matter, to avoid the costs oflitigation, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by the entry ofthis Decree. This Decree is final and binding upon the Parties, their successors and assigns.
6. The parties agree that this Decree resolves all the claims against Defendant alleged in EEOC charge number 150 2003 03166 and civil action number 3:04-cv-978-J-16MMH . The Parties further agree that this Decree does not resolve any Charges of Discrimination that may be pending with the EEOC other than the charge referred to in this paragraph.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having carefully examined the tenus and provisions of this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings filed by the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
I. JURISDICTION 7. This court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and over the Parties for the

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 3 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 63-2 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 4 of 15
purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree.
8. No party shall contest the jurisdiction of this Federal Court to enforce this Decree and its terms or the right of the EEOC to bring an enforcement suit upon breach of any terms of this Decree.
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 9. The Defendant, its officers, managers, employees, agents, partners and assigns, are
enjoined from engaging in any conduct which violates Title VII by adversely affecting the terms and conditions of any individual's employment because of their race.
10. Defendant, its officers, managers, employees, agents, partners and assigns, shall not discriminate against any individual who opposes any of Defendant's practices which the employee believes to be unlawful employment discrimination, who files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of the Statutes the Commission enforces; who cooperates with the EEOC in investigation and lor prosecution of any charge of discrimination; or who cooperated in the investigation or who offered testimony or information in the above styled litigation which resulted in this Consent Decree.
III. DEVELOPMENT OF POLICES AND TRAINING 11. Defendant has established a written race discrimination and harassment policy which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A. A complete copy of this policy will be distributed to all its current employees by April 1, 2006. Defendant further agrees that all new employees

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 4 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 63-2 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 5 of 15
will be provided a copy of the policy within one week of employment.
12. In order to further ensure the effective implementation of Defendant's antidiscrimination policies, Defendant will conduct an annual training throughout the duration of this Decree for all of its managers and supervisory personnel at all Jax Inns facilities with specific emphasis on recognizing race discrimination and acts that constitute unlawful harassment and discrimination because of race and the proper procedure to be followed if they become aware of race discrimination in the workplace and/or if they receive a complaint of such discrimination. The first training shall be 8 hours and each training thereafter shall be four hours. Defendant agrees to provide the EEOC with at least two (2) weeks notice before it conducts its training session(s), with the date(s) and location(s) of the training, the identification of the training materials to be used at the training session, and the name and job title of the employees who will be in attendance at the training. The training will be conducted by WCI. Additionally, Defendant agrees that the EEOC may, at the EEOC's discretion, be in attendance at each training session(s).
13. Defendant agrees that the training described in paragraph II shall be conducted by June 1, 2006, and should thereafter take place by June 1st annually for the duration of this Decree. Defendant further agrees that a video tape of training described in paragraph 12 shall be given to all new managers and supervisors who did not attend the annual training within thirty (30) days of being placed in a management or supervisory position.

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 5 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 63-2 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 6 of 15
IV. POSTING 14. Defendant shall post a laminated l1X17 size copy ofthe notice attached hereto as Exhibit
B within 7 days of the entering of this decree. Said notice shall be posted in conspicuous locations accessible to all employees. ( i.e. break room, employee bulletin board, cafeteria, above water fountains, etc). lbis notice is to remain posted for the duration of this Decree.
V. REPORTING AND MONITORING
15. Defendant will retain all employment records relating in any way to any complaint made to a supervisor, manager or human resource officer and to any investigation of race discrimination at Defendant's facilities in the State of Florida for the duration of this Decree and as required by federal law.
16. For the duration of this Decree, Jax Inns will provide the EEOC with the name, last known address and last known phone number of any person employed at Defendant's Florida locations who complains to his or her Manager/Supervisor, Human Resources Department, or the President that he or she has been subjected to race discrimination while working at Defendant's Florida locations during the preceding six (6) months. Defendant will also state its actions taken in response to each such allegation. The first report shall be submitted no later than September 15, 2006, and each report thereafter shall be produced semi-annually on March 15, and September 15 throughout the duration of this decree. Jax Inns will provide upon request by the Commission (a) a copy of the complaint, or if no written complaint was filed, a statement describing the nature of the

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 6 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 63-2 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 7 of 15
complaint; (b) a statement describing the actions taken in response to the complaint; and (c) outcome regarding such complaint.
17. Defendant will certify to the EEOC every six (6) months throughout the duration of this Decree that it is in compliance with all aspects of this Decree. The first such certification will be due no later than September 15, 2006, and thereafter biannually on March 15 and September 15 throughout the duration ofthis consent decree.
18. The Defendant will appoint one individual who shall be responsible for coordinating Defendant's compliance with this Consent Decree and for providing reports to the EEOC. This person shall be appointed and the EEOC notified ofhis or her identity within 15 days of the Court's approval of this Consent Decree. All reports and docwnents required to be delivered by Defendant to the EEOC pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be mailed with the notation: JAX INNS INC MONITORING to: United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Attention: Office of the Regional Attorney, 1 Biscayne Tower Building Suite 2700,2 South Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131
VII. MONETARY RELIEF 19. Defendant shall pay a lump sum in the amount of Ninety-nine thousand dollars
($99,000.00) in resolution of this litigation within thirty (30) calendar days from the Court's execution of this Decree. The monies shall be distributed as set forth in Exhibit C. All payments referenced in Exhibit C shall issue within thirty (30) calendar days from the Court's execution of this Decree, by certified mail in the name of: "Malerie Meyers and, Archibald J. Thomas, III PA, her attorney; . The checks shall be mailed to the Law

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 7 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 63-2 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 8 of 15
Offices of Archibald J. Thomas 111, P.A. Suite 1640, Riverplace Tower, 1301 Riverplace Blvd, Jacksonville, FL 32207. Copies shall be forwarded to the attention of Jennifer Brown, Trial Attorney, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, One Biscayne Tower,2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2700, Miami, Florida 33131.
20. If Defendant 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.§ 6621 (b) until the same is paid; and 2. bear any additional costs incurred by EEOC caused by non-compliance or delay of the Defendant.
VI. ENFORCEMENT
21. The Commission shall have independent authority to seek judicial enforcement of each aspect, term, provision and attachment of this Decree. The Commission will take whatever measures it deems appropriate to effectuate the enforcement of the terms of this decree.
IX. COSTS 22. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees associated with this litigation from
the monetary relief provided in this Decree.

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 8 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 63-2 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 9 of 15

DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE

23. The duration of this Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of entry of the Decree.
75!-day O~OO6. SO ORDERED ADWDGED AND DECREED, this
-rH-N-H-M-O-O~R\E 'II---'-\;u,~~\~:;)~
lTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE AGREED TO: FOR THE PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

by: lQ~Lt:~

Dale: -SL/oIQ~

Delner Franklin-Thomas

Regional Attorney

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Miami District Office

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700

2 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

AGREED TO:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF-INTE

MALERIE MEYE

~:-;/

by: . aId J. 0 as
The Law Offices of Archibald J. Thomas, III. P.A. Suite 1640 Riverplace Tower 1301 Riverplace Blvd Jacksonville, FL 32207 Attorney's for the Intervenor

Date: 3 (It)/O fe I

AGREED TO: FOR THE DEF NDANT JAXINNS IN d/b/a SPIND
by: Sc . F nnan Littler Mendelson One Biscayne tower Build 2 S. Biscayne Blvd Suite 1500

Dare:o/fL

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 9 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-0097B-JHM-MMH Document 63-2 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 10 of 15
Miami, FL 33131 (305) 400-7500

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 10 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 63-2 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 11 of 15
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 11 of 14
Case 3:04-cv-00978~JHM-MMH Document 63-2 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 12 of 15
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
* ' /I is the policy or our oompany 10 aD'ord lair and equ.1 employment opponunil)'. to all ptr$(lI\s regaMlelS oC
race, oolor, national ooain, age, or handicap. All employment dcdsions and Pr.laiocs:, including hirinl. traiJUn& plOJboC.ion, tnnsf'ers. compensation, and bend11S an: nondIsc:riminatory and based solely on merit. Our purpose is 10 prwidc ;a work cnvironrnenllhal 1$ Cree of discriminaUon.
We also, inlend Uaallhe work cnvilOMlCfIt will be: tree ofany intimicbtion. hostility, or harassmenl based on or moLiYlt~ by discrimination. We view S\1ch conduct as a YCr)' serious maller, and no form of such intimidation
or harassmenl will be· toleated. Harassment Cl\CIOmpa$SCS a broad range or physical or verbal beha\ior, bUI some CJWnple.s or prohibited coMur;t are:
• Physical or menial abuse.
• lbcial, ethnic, or 5elQlal insults, jokes, or slurs.
Sexual advances.
• Requesu for sexual favors.
Any ofi'ensi'IIC behavior or la"SWlge thai c:reates • hostile or intimidaling work atmosphere bcause of its sexual, sexist, racial, or ethnic COnlen!.
'This liS! or examples is "oc all inclusive. Any employee who believes that he or she has been subjected to di5Crimination or discriminatory harassment should report the conduct immediately to any Supervhor, thc General Mal1llger, or Ihe PersoMei Office in our home office. All complaints and related infonnatloll will be in\'eStigal~ and kept strictly confidential.
OPEN DOOR POLICY
Our "Open Door Policy" simply means that your are tree to dl.sc:uss with us ally problem at any lime with no n:lua..noc Or hesilaJ.ion. This is one oC lhe most imponanl bene.fils offered 10 you as 'an employee.
As you would expect, YOII should always be&lll by disc\assln& your problem or question with your Supervisor unless lhe problem directly involves your Supervisor and Is so sensitive that you. feel)'Ou cannot discu.ss it with your SupeNi~r comforubly. If your Supervisor is unable 10 answer your question or 10 resolve )'Our problem SIIi51actorily. you arc pc:rf'cdly free 10 conlacl fhe ntJtI level or mana&emenl and so 011 up the line. 'T'hc appropriate steps an: as rollows:
STEP I: Oiscu$5 Ihc problem with your immediate Supervisor (0 see if a 5atisfactol)' conclusion can be ~clled. If the problem cannot be dist\lssed with your imll'lediiltc Supervisor. or ir you arc: still dissatisfied arter discIIssin& the problem wilh your SUp!:rvisor, go to S1CP 2.
STEP 2. Spealc with your Supef'lisor's Immediate SlJpc:rior, if you cannot discuss the problem with thai person.
or if you arc still dissatislled 2ftcr doinC so, proceed b'J Ihe chain of command unlil you rcac;h Ihc
General Manager. For example, a Restaurant employee would go firsl 10 the immediate Supervi~or. Ihen to Ihe Food.nd Scvcraee Director, ill\d,nnally to the General Manl&tr.
2

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 12 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 63-2 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 13 of 15
OPEN DOOR POLICY continued...
STEP J: A1\er talkin, with the General Manager, uyou SliII rcd thai your problem has not been satisractorily resolved, S\lbmll details in wrilill& 10 &he PCl$OnncI Oeparuncnl in our home oftic:c, and someone: rrom !hal c\epanment will con~cl you or give you I wrill~n reply within (ouncen ct.ays.
II is our policy to answer all ipquiries by emplO)'Ce.S and to do what is reasonable 10 resolve complaints in a way
thai will be rair 10 all concerned.

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 13 of 14
Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 63-2 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 14 of 15
EXHIBITB
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES POSTED PURSUANT TO A CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND JAX
INNS, INC. d/bla SPINDRIFTER HOTEL
This notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC vs. Jax Inns. Inc. d/b/a Spindrifier Hotel Civil Action No. 3:04-cv-978-] 6MMH. Jax Inns Inc. has adopted a policy that prohibits discrimination against employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Title VII protects individuals from employment discrimination because of their race religion, color, national origin, or sex. Title VII also protects individuals from retaliation for having complained of an unlawful employment practice. Jax Inns will not condone employment discrimination of any kind as set forth in federal antidiscrimination laws, including, but not limited to, race discrimination.
Furthermore, Jax Inns Inc., supports Title VII and will not take any retaliatory 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.
Appropriate corrective action, up to and including termination, based upon the circumstances involved, shall be taken against any employee (including management personnel) found to have violated Jax Inns, Inc. policies prohibiting discrimination.
This notice shall remain posted for three (3) years from the date Decree entered. Employees or applicants for employment who have questions about their rights under Title VII or any other federal anti-discrimination law may telephone a WCI Inc at 1 866 924 4243 or the Miami District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at 1-800-669-4000.
Signed this __day of _ _ _ _ _-', 2006.
PRESIDENT/CEO, Jax Inns, Inc.
DO NOT REMOVE BEFORE _ _ _ _ _, 2009.

Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 65 Filed 04/28/2006 Page 14 of 14 Case 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH Document 64-2 Filed 04/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT C
1. Defendant shall pay a lump sum in the amount ofninety-nine thousand dollars ($99,000.00) in resolution of this litigation. Six thousand four hundred dollars ($6,400.00) shall be representative oflost wages for Ms. Malerie Meyers, less amounts required to be withheld for federal, state, and local income taxes. Defendant shall be responsible for the payment of the employer's share of any federal, state and local, income taxes, and social security withholdings. Defendant shall issue an issue an IRS form and W-2, and;
2. Fifty-seven thousand dollars ($57,000.00) shall be representative of compensatory and punitive damages for Ms. Malerie Meyers. The Defendant shall issue an IRS form 1099 for these monies.

 </s> Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?687396239163127-L_3...
CLOSED, TRLSET
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Jax Inns, Inc. Assigned to: Senior Judge John H. Moore, II Referred to: Magistrate Judge Marcia Morales Howard Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 09/29/2004 Date Terminated: 03/23/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Jennifer N. Brown Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6012 Fax: 3055364494 Email: jennifer.brown@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Malerie Meyers

Scott A. Forman Littler Mendelson, PC 1 Biscayne Twr - Ste 1500 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 305/400-7500 Fax: 305/603-2552 Email: sforman@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Archibald J. Thomas, III Archibald J. Thomas, III, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Blvd. Suite 1640 Jacksonville, FL 32207 904/396-2322 Fax: 904/398-3271 Email: archibald@job-rights.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 8

6/7/2007 12:07 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?687396239163127-L_3...

V.
Defendant
Jax Inns, Inc. doing business as Spindrifter Hotel

represented by Jonathan A. Beckerman Littler Mendelson, PC 1 Biscayne Twr - Ste 1500 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 305/400-7500 Fax: 305/418-7368 Email: jabeckerman@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott A. Forman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/29/2004 09/29/2004 09/30/2004 11/08/2004 11/09/2004 11/12/2004 11/15/2004
11/19/2004 11/29/2004 11/30/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Jax Inns, Inc. ; jury demand , filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(SJW, ) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
2 Summons issued as to Jax Inns, Inc.. Consent(s) issued. (SJW, ) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
3 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track 2. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 9/30/2004. (VMF ) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
4 RETURN of service executed on 10/23/04 as to Jax Inns, Inc.. (SJW, ) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
5 MOTION to intervene by Malerie Meyers. (Attachments: # 1 proposed intervenor's complaint)(SJW, ) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
6 Defendant's ANSWER to complaint and Affirmative Defenses by Jax Inns, Inc..(Forman, Scott) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
7 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER. Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statements due within 14 days. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 11/15/2004. (JLW) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
8 NOTICE by Jax Inns, Inc. re 5 MOTION to intervene of Non-Objection (Forman, Scott) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
9 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by Jax Inns, Inc.. (Forman, Scott) (Entered: 11/29/2004)
10 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/30/2004)

2 of 8

6/7/2007 12:07 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?687396239163127-L_3...

11/30/2004 11/30/2004 12/20/2004 01/10/2005 01/12/2005 02/02/2005
02/07/2005
02/07/2005
02/07/2005 02/07/2005 02/08/2005
02/08/2005
02/08/2005

11 ORDER granting 5 Motion to intervene. Signed by Judge John H. Moore II on 11/30/2004. (CDF) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
15 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT; jury trial demand, filed by Malerie Meyers.(SJW, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
12 Defendant's ANSWER to complaint and Affirmative Defenses to Intervenor's Complaint by Jax Inns, Inc..(Forman, Scott) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
13 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 7 Interested persons order by Malerie Meyers. (SJW, ) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
14 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
16 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 9/30/2005. Joinder of Parties due by 3/7/2005. Dispositive motions due by 11/30/2005. Pretrial statement due by 3/9/2006. Pretrial Conference set for 3/16/2006 10:30 AM in Courtroom 12 D before Senior Judge John H. Moore II. Jury Trial set for the trial term commencing 4/3/2006 in Courtroom 12 D before Senior Judge John H. Moore II.. Signed by Judge John H. Moore II on 2/2/2005. (VMF ) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
17 First MOTION to extend time to 2/28/05 to Respond to Intervenor's First Request for Production and First Set of Interrogatories by Jax Inns, Inc. (Forman, Scott) Modified on 2/8/2005 to correct docket text (SMS). (Entered: 02/07/2005)
18 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File To Intervenor's Request for Production of Documents and Intervener's First Set of Interrogatories by Jax Inns, Inc. (Forman, Scott) Modified on 2/8/2005. Counsel contacted and told refile due to an incorrect PDF document attached (JMAP). (Entered: 02/07/2005)
19 NOTICE by Jax Inns, Inc. of Filing Initial Disclosures (Forman, Scott) Modified on 2/9/2005 (SJW, ).(STRIKEN PER ORDER #23) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
20 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to EEOC's First Request for Production and First Set of Interrogatories by Jax Inns, Inc.. (Forman, Scott) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
21 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Two-Week Extension of Time to Respond to EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents and EEOC's First Set of Interrogatories. Responses due by February 22, 2005. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on February 8, 2005. (MK) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
22 ORDER granting 17 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Two-Week Extension of Time to Respond to Intervener's First Request for Production of Documents and Intervener's First Set of Interrogatories. Responses due February 22, 2005. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on February 8, 2005. (MK) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
23 ORDER striking [19] Notice of filing Initial Disclosures filed by Jax Inns, Inc. The clerk is directed to remove this document from the official court record. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on February 8, 2005. (MK) (Entered: 02/09/2005)

3 of 8

6/7/2007 12:07 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?687396239163127-L_3...

04/27/2005 06/20/2005 06/23/2005 06/24/2005 07/14/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/28/2005 07/29/2005
08/15/2005 08/24/2005 09/13/2005 09/15/2005

24 STANDING ORDER - Filing of Documents that Exceed Twenty-Five Pages. Signed by all Jacksonville Judges on 04/27/05.(SMS) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
25 MOTION for protective order by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
26 NOTICE of withdrawal of motion by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 25 MOTION for protective order filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
27 ORDER directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate 25 Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 6/24/2005. (JLW) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
28 Joint MOTION for protective order and Stipulation and Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Confidentiality by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jax Inns, Inc.. (Forman, Scott) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
29 ORDER granting, as modified 28 Joint Motion and Stipulation for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 7/15/2005. (JLW) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
30 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 7/15/2005. (JLW) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
31 Joint MOTION for protective order and to Quash Defendant's Subpoenas by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
32 ORDER granting, in part, and taking under advisement, in part 31 Plaintiff and Intervenor's Joint Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Defendant's Subpoenas. The Motion is granted to the extent that the discovery at issue in the Motion is stayed pending further order of the Court. Defendant's response due no later than the close of business on August 15, 2005. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 7/29/2005. (JLW) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
33 RESPONSE to motion re 31 Joint MOTION for protective order and to Quash Defendant's Subpoenas filed by Jax Inns, Inc.. (Beckerman, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/15/2005)
34 ORDER granting, in part, and denying, in part 31 Plaintiff and Intervenor's Joint Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Defendant's Subpoenas. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 8/24/2005. (JLW) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
35 MOTION to compel Production of Documents for In Camera Inspection and for Attorneys Fees and Costs by Jax Inns, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to Motion for in Camera Inspection, to Compel Production of Documents, and for Attorneys Fees and Costs)(Beckerman, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
36 ORDER taking under advisement 35 Motion for in camera inspection, to compel production of documents, and for attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff shall file a response to this motion on or before September 22, 2005. Plaintiff is directed to provide a copy of the documents listed on the privilege log to the undersigned's

4 of 8

6/7/2007 12:07 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?687396239163127-L_3...

09/15/2005 09/22/2005 09/23/2005
09/23/2005
09/26/2005 09/29/2005
10/11/2005
10/14/2005 10/18/2005 10/26/2005 12/12/2005

chambers no later than September 22, 2005. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on September 15, 2005. (MK) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
37 MOTION to compel by Jax Inns, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1)(Beckerman, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
38 RESPONSE in opposition re 35 MOTION to compel Production of Documents for In Camera Inspection and for Attorneys Fees and Costs filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4)(Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
39 ORDER taking under advisement 37 Motion to compel the intervenor's deposition and for order enlarging the discovery period. Plaintiff and Intervenor are directed to file their responses to this motion no later than the close of business on September 29, 2005. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on September 23, 2005. (MK) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
40 ORDER taking under advisement 35 Motion for in camera inspection, to compel production of documents and for attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff is directed to provide a signed declaration to the undersigned chambers no later than September 29, 2005. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on September 23, 2005. (MK) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
41 NOTICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 40 Order on motion to compel, of Compliance With Court Orders (Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
42 RESPONSE in opposition re 37 MOTION to compel the Intevenor's Deposition and for Enlarging the Discovery Period filed by Malerie Meyers, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 July 7 deposition cancellation# 2 Exhibit 2 Defendant's July 8 letter# 3 Exhibit 3 August 25 notice# 4 Exhibit 4 August 10 email# 5 Exhibit 5 August 31 email# 6 Exhibit 6 deposition excerpt)(Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
43 ORDER granting, in part, and denying, in part 37 Defendant's Motion to Compel the Intervenor's Deposition and for Order Enlarging the Discovery Period. The parties shall have up to and including December 13, 2005 to complete discovery and up to and including January 18, 2006 to file dispositive motions. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 10/11/2005. (JLW) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
44 ORDER granting, in part, and denying, in part 35 Defendant's Motion for In Camera Inspection, to Compel Production of Documetns, and for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 10/14/2005. (JLW) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
45 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by Judge John H. Moore II on 10/18/2005. (VMF ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
46 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel byU.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
47 Unopposed MOTION to take deposition from EEOC Investigator, Jimmie Mack Outside of the Discovery Period by Jax Inns, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Correspondence dated November 9, 2005# 2 Exhibit Correspondence dated November 28, 2005)(Beckerman, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/12/2005)

5 of 8

6/7/2007 12:07 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?687396239163127-L_3...

12/15/2005 01/06/2006 01/09/2006 01/10/2006 01/18/2006 01/18/2006 01/18/2006 01/19/2006
01/19/2006

48 ORDER granting 47 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for an Order Granting Defendant Leave to Depose the EEOC Investigator, Jimmie Mack, Outside of the Discovery Period. The deposition shall be completed on or before January 6, 2006. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 12/15/2005. (JLW) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
49 Second MOTION for discovery Unopposed Motion for an Order Granting Defendant Leave to Depose the EEOC Investigator, Jimmie Mack, Outside of the Discovery Period by Jax Inns, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Defendant's Second Unopposed Motion for An Order Granting Defendant Leave to Depose the EEOC Investigator, Jimmie Mack, Outside of the Discovery Period)(Beckerman, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
50 NOTICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 49 Second MOTION for discovery Unopposed Motion for an Order Granting Defendant Leave to Depose the EEOC Investigator, Jimmie Mack, Outside of the Discovery Period Plaintiff EEOC's Notice of Clarification of Position (Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
51 ORDER granting 49 Defendant's Second Unopposed Motion for an Order Granting Defendant Leave to Depose the EEOC Investigator, Jimmie Mack, Outside of the Discovery Period. The deposition shall be completed before January 20, 2006. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 1/10/2006. (JLW) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
52 MOTION for summary judgment by Jax Inns, Inc.. (Beckerman, Jonathan) Modified on 3/10/2006 (SJW, ). (STRICKEN per order #60) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
53 MEMORANDUM in support re [52] Motion for summary judgment filed by Jax Inns, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Exhibits 1-2# (2) Exhibit Exhibit 3)(Beckerman, Jonathan) Modified on 3/10/2006 (SJW, ). (STRICKEN per order #60) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
54 STATEMENT of undisputed facts in support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Jax Inns, Inc... (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1# (2) Exhibit 1_1# (3) Exhibit 1_2# (4) Exhibit 1_3# (5) Exhibit 2-6# (6) Exhibit 7-9# (7) Exhibit 9-15)(Beckerman, Jonathan) Modified on 3/10/2006 (SJW, ). (STRICKEN per order #60) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
55 DEPOSITION of Malerie Meyers taken on 11/29/05 re: [52] MOTION for summary judgment by Jax Inns, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Continuation of deposition transcript of Malerie Meyers# 2 Exhibit Continuation of deposition of Malerie Meyers# 3 Exhibit Continuation of Deposition trancript of Malerie Meyers# 4 Exhibit Continuation of Deposition Transcript of Malerie Meyers# 5 Exhibit Continuation of deposition transcript of Malerie Meyers)(Beckerman, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
56 DEPOSITION of Vijay Patel taken on September 19, 2005 re: [52] MOTION for summary judgment by Jax Inns, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition transcript of Vijay Patel# 2 Exhibit Continuation of deposition transcript of Vijay Patel# 3 Exhibit Continuation of deposition transcript of Vijay Patel# 4 Exhibit Continuation of deposition transcript of Vijay Patel# 5 Exhibit Continuation of

6 of 8

6/7/2007 12:07 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?687396239163127-L_3...

01/19/2006
02/06/2006 02/06/2006
03/09/2006 03/22/2006 03/22/2006 04/13/2006 04/14/2006 04/28/2006

deposition transcript of Vijay Patel# 6 Exhibit Continuation of deposition transcript of Vijay Patel)(Beckerman, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
57 DEPOSITION of Jimmie Mack taken on July 27, 2005 re: [52] MOTION for summary judgment by Jax Inns, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition transcript of Jimmie Mack# 2 Exhibit Continuation of deposition transcript of Jimmie Mack# 3 Exhibit Continuation of deposition transcript of Jimmie Mack# 4 Exhibit Continuation of Deposition transcript of Jimmie Mack# 5 Exhibit Continuation of deposition transcript of Jimmie Mack# 6 Exhibit Continuation of deposition transcript of Jimmie Mack# 7 Exhibit Continuation of deposition transcript of Jimmie Mack)(Beckerman, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
58 RESPONSE in opposition re [52] MOTION for summary judgment and memorandum of law filed by Malerie Meyers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Unemployment documents)# 2 Exhibit Def EEOC Position Statement# 3 Exhibit Def Answer to Interrogatories# 4 Exhibit Twiddy Affidavit)(Thomas, Archibald) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
59 RESPONSE in opposition re [52] MOTION for summary judgment filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit 17)(Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
60 ORDER striking Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 52), Memorandum in Support (Dkt. 53) and Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Dkt. 54). Signed by Judge John H. Moore II on 3/9/2006. (SA, ) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
61 MEDIATION REPORT Hearing held on 3/10/06 Hearing outcome: settled(SJW, ) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
62 ORDER dismissing case with prejudice Signed by Judge John H. Moore II on 3/22/2006. (VMF ) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
63 NOTICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICE OF FILING CONSENT DECREE (Attachments: # 1)(Gomez, Maritza) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
64 AMENDED DOCUMENT by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amended Ex. C to Consent Decree. (Attachments: # 1)(Curtin, Nora) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
65 CONSENT DECREE Signed by Judge John H. Moore II on 4/27/2006. (VMF ) (Entered: 04/28/2006)

7 of 8

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/07/2007 13:08:01

6/7/2007 12:07 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?687396239163127-L_3...

PACER Login:

hs0328

Description:

Docket Report

Billable Pages:

5

Client Code: Search Criteria:
Cost:

eeoc 3:04-cv-00978-JHM-MMH 0.40

8 of 8

6/7/2007 12:07 PM


[CONTENT] EEOC | Miami | Jax Inns, Inc. | September 29, 2004 | District Court | the Middle District | Florida ||| EEOC | Title VII | African American | one | African Americans ||| April 28, 2006 | 99,000 | Title VII | Title VII | EEOC ||| 3 years ||| 2009 [SUMMARY] The EEOC's Miami district office sued Jax Inns, Inc., on September 29, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  The EEOC's complaint alleged that the defendant violated Title VII when it discriminated based on race (African American) by harassing and terminating one of its employees for her association with African Americans.  The parties entered into a consent decree on April 28, 2006, which stipulated that the defendant would pay the complainant $99,000 in damages, post a notice of compliance with Title VII, provide Title VII training to its managers and supervisors, distribute its non-discrimination policy, provide for a consent decree compliance official, and report complaints of discrimination or harassment to the EEOC semiannually.

The terms of the agreement were to run for 3 years. The docket sheet does not show any further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2009.

