Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 1-1 Filed 05/10/2005 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

OS

lt':Y I 0

lMil

'
j

o.)'....c..: 3

: ~- \)5-·-C/-,STER;~J

~-: \l

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY }

COMMISSION,

}

}

Plaintiff,

}

}

v.

}

}

JEA SENIOR LIVING d/b/a PINEHURST

}

ALZHEIMER'S SPECIAL CARE CENTER, }

}

}

_________________D_ef_en_d_an_t.______}}

5'.?-VI t ~ CIVIL ACTION NO. .·!?

2__

COMPLAINT

(JURY DEMANDED)

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to correct unlawful employment practices and to make whole Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vemell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiquana Watson and Tiffany Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals. The Commission alleges that the Defendant, JEA Senior Living d/b/a Pinehurst Alzheimer's Special Care Center, subjected Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vemell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Linda Warren, Tiquana Watson and Tiffany Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals to disparate treatment and a hostile work environment based on race, AfricanAmerican. The Commission further alleges that the Defendant discriminated against Sherry Warlick

COMPLAINT

I

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 1-1 Filed 05/10/2005 Page 2 of 6

by subjecting her to a hostile work environment. The Commission alleges that the Defendant further violated Title VII by terminating Deaquinita Clark in retaliation for her opposition to employment practices she believed to be unlawful under Title VII. The Commission further alleges that the Defendant constructively discharged Tiquana Watson.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(l) and(3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e5(f)(l) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 198la. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an 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(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(a). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, JEA Senior Living d/b/a Pinehurst Alzheimer's Special Care Center has continuously been and is now doing business in the State ofTexas, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70 I (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).

COMPLAINT

2

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 1-1 Filed 05/10/2005 Page 3 of 6

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vemell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiquana Watson and Tiffany Watson filed charges ofdiscrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. During the employment ofCharging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vemell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Linda Warren, Tiquana Watson and Tiffany Watson, Defendant subjected them and other similarly situated aggrieved individuals to disparate treatment in the terms and conditions oftheir employment including benefits and privileges on the job because oftheir race, African-American, in violation of Section 703(a)(l) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2. Further, Defendant subjected Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, VerneII Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiquana Watson and Tiffany Watson and other similarly situated aggrieved individuals to racial slurs, comments and racial comments that created a hostile work environment. In addition, in April2003, Defendant constructively discharged Tiquana Watson, and unlawfully terminated the employment of Deaquinita Clark in retaliation for her opposition of a discriminatory act, in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII. 9. The effect ofthe practices complained of above has been to deprive Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vemell Evans,

COMPLAINT

3

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 1-1 Filed 05/10/2005 Page 4 of 6

Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiquana Watson and Tiffany Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8, above, were intentional.
II. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraph 8, above, were done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiquana Watson and Tiffany Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant, JEA Senior Living Center d/b/a Pinehurst Alzheimer's Special Care Center, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, and from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race in violation of Title VII. B. Order the Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiquana Watson and Tiffany Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

COMPLAINT

4

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 1-1 Filed 05/10/2005 Page 5 of 6

C. Order the Defendant to make whole Deaquinita Clark and Tiquana Watson and any

other similarly situated aggrieved individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment

interest in amounts to be proved at trial, front pay, and other affirmative reliefnecessary to eradicate

the effects of unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful place

reinstatement.

D. Order the Defendant to make whole Charging Parties Rosemary Baker,

Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vemell Evans, Tammy Harsfield,

Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiquana Watson

and Tiffany Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals by providing

compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices

complained of in paragraph 8, above, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering,

inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

E. Order the Defendant to make whole Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie

Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vemell Evans, Tammy Harsfield,

Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiquana Watson

and Tiffany Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals, by providing

compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained

of in paragraph 8, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

F. Order the Defendant to pay punitive damages for its malicious or reckless conduct

described in paragraph 8, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

COMPLAINT

5

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 1-1 Filed 05/10/2005 Page 6 of 6
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by the complaint.
Respectfully submitted, ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS
Regional A omey Oklahoma State Bar No. 011782
SUZANNE M. ANDERSON Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas Bar No. 14009470
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Dallas District Office 207 South Houston, 3rd Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 253-2740 (214) 253-2749 (FAX)

COMPLAINT

6

 </s> Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 79 Filed 08/1274/2005 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

§

§

Plaintiff

§

§

v.

§

§

JEA SENIOR LIVING d/b/a PINEHURST. §

ALZHEIMER’S SPECIAL CARE CENTER §

§

Defendant.

§

§

§

§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:05CV162 JUDGE SCHNEIDER

PLAINTIFFS’ (INTERVENERS’) ORIGINAL COMPLAINT NOW COME Intervenors, Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Hartsfield, Aquanetta Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiffany Watson, and Tijuana Watson, Plaintiffs herein, complaining of JEA Senior Living d/b/a Pinehurst Alzheimer’s Special Care Center, Defendant herein, and for causes of action submit the following:
I Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4); 28 U.S.C. § 1337; and 42 U.S.C. § 20003–5(f). This is a suit in equity and at law authorized and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) and it seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202.

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 79 Filed 08/1274/2005 Page 2 of 6
2. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 124(a)(1) in that the unlawfulemployment practices alleged below were and are being committed within the State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas. Defendant is subject to service in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.
II Parties 3. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs, except Plaintiff Warlick, were African-American citizens of the United States and residents of Smith County, Texas. Plaintiff Warlick is a Caucasian citizen of the United States. Plaintiffs have been subjected to unlawful employment practices committed in the State of Texas, Eastern District, Tyler Division. 4. Defendant is a company doing business in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Defendant maintains and administers records relevant to its employment practices within said district and division. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., in that the defendant is engaged in an industry affecting commerce and employs at least fifteen (15) persons.
III Federal Causes of Action 5. This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief to secure the rights of plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). It is brought to prevent defendant from maintaining a policy, practice, customor usage of discriminating against plaintiffs in regard to terms, conditions and privileges of employment, and to compensate them for discrimination and discharge.
2

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 79 Filed 08/1274/2005 Page 3 of 6
6. Since approximately 2002, Defendant has discriminated against plaintiffs on account of their race, African-American or in the case of Plaintiff Warlick because she associated with the AfricanAmerican employees, culminating in their termination and/or constructive discharge. 7. Specifically, in approximately 2002, Ashley Bulman became the administrator for Defendant. From that time on, white employees were systematically treated better than the African-American employees, including Plaintiffs herein. 8. White employees were generally paid better than African-American employees. They would get raises that the African-American employees did not. In fact, new white employees were hired at rates greater than the African-American employees. 9. Defendant, through Administrator Bulman, also overlooked prejudice by supervisors. One supervisor said that there would never be a Black person hired in her department. One nurse referred to the Black employees as “monkeys.” Another nurse referred to the Black employees as a “bunch of niggers.” Other employees have said that they do not like working with Black people and called them “niggers.” Black employees are also referred to as “you people” and “these gals.” One white employee even wore a confederate flag and was not made to take it off. 10. Prior to Administrator Bulman’s arrival, most of the supervisors were African-American. After Administrator Bulman’s arrival, all of the supervisors became white. 11. African-American employees, including Plaintiffs herein, were talked to and treated differently than the white employees in all respects. They were also disciplined or even terminated for reasons that white employees were not terminated. 12. Plaintiffs were each terminated or constructively discharged as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory practices. Some were simply driven away by the unacceptable discriminatory
3

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 79 Filed 08/1274/2005 Page 4 of 6
practices. Others were fired for pretextual reasons and/or reasons for which white employees were not terminated. 13. Plaintiff Sherry Warlick is the sole white Plaintiff in this cause of action. Plaintiff Warlick was treated differently by Defendant because she hung around with African-American employee and coPlaintiff Tammy Hartsfield. In particular, she was told that it was best if she came up to the front to eat instead of eating in the break room with Plaintiff Hartsfield. When she refused, she began to be disciplined over pretextual matters. Plaintiff Warlick and Plaintiff Hartsfield were not even allowed to be in the office at the same time together. Plaintiff Warlick was ultimately terminated or, alternatively, constructively discharged, in retaliation for her opposition to race discrimination. 14. Within 300 days of the acts of which plaintiffs complain, most of the plaintiffs filed written charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Thereafter, the Commission investigated plaintiffs’ charges and concluded that there was reasonable cause to believe that violations of Title VII had occurred. Suit was thereafter filed by the EEOC and plaintiffs have sought to intervene on a prompt basis. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been fulfilled. 15. As a result of defendant’s unlawful conduct, plaintiffs have suffered loss of enjoyment of life and severe emotional distress for which they seek compensatory and punitive damages. 16. Defendant’s actions complained of herein were taken with malice or with a conscious disregard for plaintiffs’ federally protected rights, making an award of exemplary damages appropriate.
4

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 79 Filed 08/1274/2005 Page 5 of 6
IV Request for Relief ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court advance this case on the docket and grant them the following relief: 1. Grant plaintiffs a permanent injunction, enjoining defendant, its agents, employees, successors, and attorneys from continuing to discriminate against them; 2. Grant plaintiffs a declaratory judgment, declaring defendant’s past practices herein complained of to be in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a); 3. Grant plaintiffs back pay, front pay, retroactive seniority, compensatory damages, and any other necessary equitable and legal relief to compensate them; 4. Grant plaintiffs immediate reinstatement, or alternatively, if reinstatement is deemed infeasible, front pay; 5. Grant plaintiffs actual damages; 6. Grant plaintiffs punitive damages; 7. Grant plaintiffs attorneys’ fees; and 8. Grant such other general relief to which plaintiffs show themselves justly entitled.
5

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 79 Filed 08/1274/2005 Page 6 of 6
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Alex A. Castetter Alex A. Castetter Attorney for Plaintiff Bar Card No. 00783808
Stuckey, Garrigan & Castetter Law Offices 2803 C North Street P.O. Box 631902 Nacogdoches, Texas 75963-1902 (936) 560-6020/FAX: 560-9578 aacstugar@cox-internet.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served counsel in this case with a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ (Intervenors’) Original Complaint by sending same electronically to:
Robert A. Canino Suzanne M. Anderson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Dallas District Office 207 South Houston, 3rd Floor Dallas, Texas 75202
Patrick J. Maher Shannon, Gracey, Ratliff & Miller, L.L.P. 777 Main Street, Suite 3800 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-5304 on this the 17th day of August, 2005.
/s/ Alex A. Castetter Alex A. Castetter
6

 </s> Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 17 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION

§

§

Plaintiff

§

§

and

§

§

ROSEMARY BAKER, MATTIE BOWSER §

TERESA BOWSER, DEAQUINITA CLARK§

HAZEL DIXON, VERNELL EVANS,

§

TAMMY HARTSFIELD, AQUANETTA §

MIMS, VONCELLA STREET, PHILLIS §

TEMPLE, SHERRY WARLICK, LINDA §

WARREN, TIFFANY WATSON and

§

TIJUANA WATSON

§

§

Plaintiffs-Intervenors

§

§

v.

§

§

JEA SENIOR LIVING d/b/a PINEHURST. §

ALZHEIMER’S SPECIAL CARE CENTER §

and

§

TYLER GROUP, LTD.

§

§

Defendants.

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:05CV162 JUDGE SCHNEIDER

PLAINTIFFS’ (INTERVENORS’) AMENDED COMPLAINT NOW COME Intervenors, RosemaryBaker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, HazelDixon, VernellEvans, Tammy Hartsfield, AquanettaMims, Voncella Street, PhyllisTemple, Sherry Warlick, LindaWarren, TiffanyWatson, and Tijuana Watson, Plaintiffs-Intervenors herein, complaining

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 17 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 2 of 7
ofJEASenior Living d/b/a Pinehurst Alzheimer’s SpecialCareCenter and Tyler Group, Ltd., Defendants herein, and for causes of action submit the following:
I Jurisdiction and Venue 1. Jurisdiction ofthisCourt isinvoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4); 28 U.S.C. § 1337; and 42 U.S.C. § 20003–5(f). This is a suit in equity and at law authorized and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) and it seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. 2. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 124(a)(1) in that the unlawfulemployment practices alleged below wereand arebeing committed within the State ofTexasand the Eastern District of Texas. Defendants are subject to service in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.
II Parties 3. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs, except Plaintiff Warlick, were African-American citizensof the United States and residents of Smith County, Texas. Plaintiff Warlick is a Caucasiancitizenofthe United States. Plaintiffshave beensubjected to unlawfulemployment practicescommitted in the State of Texas, Eastern District, Tyler Division. 4. Defendants are companies doing business in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Defendants maintain and administer records relevant to their employment practiceswithin said district and
2

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 17 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 3 of 7
division. Defendants are employers within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., in that the defendants are engaged in an industry affecting commerce and employ at least fifteen (15) persons.
III Federal Causes of Action 5. This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief to secure the rights of plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). It is brought to prevent defendants frommaintaining policies, practices, customs or usages of discriminating against plaintiffs in regard to terms, conditions and privileges of employment, and to compensate them for discrimination and discharge. 6. Sinceapproximately2002, Defendants have discriminated against plaintiffsonaccount oftheir race, African-American or in the case of Plaintiff Warlick because she associated with the African-American employees, culminating in their termination and/or constructive discharge. 7. Specifically, in approximately 2002, AshleyBulmanbecame the administrator for Defendants at Pinehurst Alzheimer’s Special Care Center. From that time on, white employees were systematically treated better than the African-American employees, including Plaintiffs herein. 8. White employees weregenerally paid better thanAfrican-American employees. Theywould get raises that the African-American employees did not. In fact, new white employees were hired at rates greater than the African-American employees. 9. Defendants, through Administrator Bulman, also overlooked prejudice by supervisors. One supervisor said that therewould never be a Black personhired in her department. One nurse referred to
3

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 17 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 4 of 7
the Black employees as “monkeys.” Another nurse referred to the Black employees as a “bunch of niggers.” Other employees have said that they do not like working with Black people and called them “niggers.” Black employees are also referred to as “you people” and “these gals.” One white employee even wore a confederate flag and was not made to take it off. 10. Prior to Administrator Bulman’s arrival, most of the supervisors were African-American. After Administrator Bulman’s arrival, all of the supervisors became white. 11. African-Americanemployees, including Plaintiffsherein, weretalkedto and treated differentlythan the white employees in all respects. Theywerealso disciplinedor eventerminated for reasons that white employees were not terminated. 12. Plaintiffs were each terminated or constructively discharged as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory practices. Some were simplydriven awaybythe unacceptable discriminatorypractices. Others were fired for pretextual reasons and/or reasons for which white employees were not terminated. 13. Plaintiff Sherry Warlick is the sole white Plaintiff in this cause of action. Plaintiff Warlick was treated differently by Defendants because she hung around with African-American employee and coPlaintiff Tammy Hartsfield. In particular, she was told that it was best ifshe came up to the front to eat instead of eating inthe breakroomwithPlaintiffHartsfield. Whenshe refused, she began to be disciplined over pretextualmatters. PlaintiffWarlick and PlaintiffHartsfield were not even allowed to be in the office at the same time together. Plaintiff Warlick was ultimately terminated or, alternatively, constructively discharged, in retaliation for her opposition to race discrimination. 14. Within 300 days ofthe acts ofwhichplaintiffs complain, most of the plaintiffsfiled written charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Thereafter, the Commission
4

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 17 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 5 of 7
investigated plaintiffs’chargesand concluded that therewas reasonable cause to believe that violationsof Title VII had occurred. Suit was thereafter filed bytheEEOC andplaintiffs have sought to intervene on a prompt basis. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been fulfilled. 15. As a result of defendants’ unlawful conduct,plaintiffshave suffered loss of enjoyment of life and severe emotional distress for which they seek compensatory and punitive damages. 16. Defendants’ actions complained of herein were taken with malice or witha conscious disregard for plaintiffs’ federally protected rights, making an award of exemplary damages appropriate.
IV Request for Relief ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiffs-Intervenorsrespectfully request that this Court advance this case on the docket and grant them the following relief: 1. Grant Plaintiffs-Intervenors a permanent injunction, enjoining defendants, their agents, employees, successors, and attorneys from continuing to discriminate against them; 2. Grant Plaintiffs-Intervenors a declaratory judgment, declaring defendants’ past practices herein complained of to be in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a); 3. Grant Plaintiffs-Intervenors back pay, front pay, retroactive seniority, compensatory damages, and any other necessary equitable and legal relief to compensate them; 4. Grant Plaintiffs-Intervenorsimmediate reinstatement, or alternatively, if reinstatement is deemed infeasible, front pay; 5. Grant Plaintiffs-Intervenors actual damages;
5

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 17 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 6 of 7
6. Grant Plaintiffs-Intervenors punitive damages; 7. Grant Plaintiffs-Intervenors attorneys’ fees; and 8. Grant such other general relief to which Plaintiffs-Intervenors show themselves justly
entitled.
Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Alex A. Castetter Alex A. Castetter Attorney for Plaintiffs-Intervenors Bar Card No. 00783808 Stuckey, Garrigan & Castetter Law Offices 2803 C North Street P.O. Box 631902 Nacogdoches, Texas 75963-1902 (936) 560-6020/FAX: 560-9578 aacstugar@cox-internet.com
6

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 17 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I herebycertifythat I have servedcounselin this case with a true and correct copyofthe foregoing Plaintiffs’ (Intervenors’) Amended Complaint by sending same electronically to: Robert A. Canino Suzanne M. Anderson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Dallas District Office 207 South Houston, 3rd Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 Patrick J. Maher Shannon, Gracey, Ratliff & Miller, L.L.P. 777 Main Street, Suite 3800 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-5304 on this the 15th day of November, 2005.
/s/ Alex A. Castetter Alex A. Castetter
7

 </s> Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 18 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY }

COMMISSION,

}

}

Plaintiff,

}

}

v.

}

}

JERRY ERWIN ASSOCIATES (JEA)

}

SENIOR LIVING d/b/a PINEHURST

}

ALZHEIMER’S SPECIAL CARE CENTER }

AND TYLER GROUP, LTD.

}

}

Defendants.

}

}

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:05-CV-162 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(JURY DEMANDED)

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to correct unlawful employment practices and to make whole Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tijuana Watson and Tiffany Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals. The Commission alleges that the Defendant, Jerry Erwin Associates (JEA) Senior Living d/b/a Pinehurst Alzheimer’s Special Care Center and Tyler Group Ltd., subjected Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Linda Warren, Tijuana Watson and Tiffany Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals to disparate

COMPLAINT

1

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 18 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 2 of 6

treatment and a hostile work environment based on race, African-American. The Commission further alleges that the Defendant discriminated against Sherry Warlick by subjecting her to a hostile work environment. The Commission alleges that the Defendant further violated Title VII by terminating Deaquinita Clark in retaliation for her opposition to employment practices she believed to be unlawful under Title VII. The Commission further alleges that the Defendant constructively discharged Tijuana Watson.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and(3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e5(f)(1) and (3), 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 jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an 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(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(a). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, JEA Senior Living d/b/a Pinehurst Alzheimer’s Special Care Center and Tyler Group Ltd. has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Texas, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an

COMPLAINT

2

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 18 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 3 of 6

industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tijuana Watson and Tiffany Watson filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. During the employment of Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Linda Warren, Tijuana Watson and Tiffany Watson, Defendant subjected them and other similarly situated aggrieved individuals to disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment including benefits and privileges on the job because of their race, African-American, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2. Further, Defendant subjected Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tijuana Watson and Tiffany Watson and other similarly situated aggrieved individuals to racial slurs, comments and racial comments that created a hostile work environment. In addition, in April 2003, Defendant constructively discharged Tijuana Watson, and unlawfully terminated the employment of Deaquinita Clark in retaliation for her opposition of a discriminatory act, in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII.

COMPLAINT

3

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 18 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 4 of 6

9. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tijuana Watson and Tiffany Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8, above, were intentional.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8, above, were done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tijuana Watson and Tiffany Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant, JEA Senior Living Center d/b/a Pinehurst Alzheimer’s Special Care Center and Tyler Group Ltd., its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, and from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race in violation of Title VII. B. Order the Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tijuana Watson and Tiffany Watson

COMPLAINT

4

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 18 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 5 of 6

and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order the Defendant to make whole Deaquinita Clark and Tijuana Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest in amounts to be proved at trial, front pay, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful place reinstatement.
D. Order the Defendant to make whole Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tijuana Watson and Tiffany Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 8, above, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order the Defendant to make whole Charging Parties Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Harsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tijuana Watson and Tiffany Watson and any other similarly situated aggrieved individuals, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 8, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order the Defendant to pay punitive damages for its malicious or reckless conduct described in paragraph 8, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

COMPLAINT

5

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 18 Filed 11/15/2005 Page 6 of 6
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by the complaint.
Respectfully submitted, ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Deputy General Counsel ROBERT A. CANINO Regional Attorney Oklahoma State Bar No. 011782
/S/ Suzanne M. Anderson SUZANNE M. ANDERSON Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas Bar No. 14009470
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Dallas District Office 207 South Houston, 3rd Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 253-2746 (214) 253-2749 (FAX)

COMPLAINT

6

 </s> Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 22-1 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY }

COMMISSION,

}

}

Plaintiff,

}

}

ROSEMARY BAKER et. al.,

}

}

Plaintiff Intervenors,

}

v.

}

}

JERRY ERWIN ASSOCIATES (JEA)

}

SENIOR LIVING d/b/a PINEHURST

}

ALZHEIMER’S SPECIAL CARE CENTER }

AND TYLER GROUP, LTD.

}

}

Defendants.

}

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:05-CV-162

CONSENT DECREE THIS CONSENT DECREE is made and entered into by and between the Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Plaintiff Intervenors, Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Hartsfield, Aquanette Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tijuana Watson and Tiffany Watson, and the Defendant, Jerry Erwin Associates (JEA) Senior Living d/b/a Pinehurst Alzheimer’s Special Care Center and Tyler Group Ltd., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, with regard to the EEOC’s First Amended Complaint and Plaintiff Intervenors’ First Amended Complaint, (“the Complaints”), in Civil Action No. 6:05-CV162. This Complaint was based upon Charges of Discrimination filed by the Plaintiff Intervenors against the Defendant JEA.

CONSENT DECREE

1

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 22-1 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 2 of 9

The Plaintiff EEOC’s First Amended Complaint and the Plaintiff Intervenors’ First Amended Complaint allege that the Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, when it subjected the Plaintiff Intervenors to a hostile work environment and disparate treatment because of their race, and when it constructively discharged Tiquana Watson and terminated Deaquinita Clark in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination. The Plaintiff Intervenors First Amended Complaint includes claims of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.
The Defendant JEA has filed an Answer denying that it harassed or discriminated against Plaintiff Intervenors or violated their legal rights in any way.
The EEOC, Plaintiff Intervenors and the Defendants agree to compromise and settle the differences embodied in the Complaints, and intend that the terms and conditions of the compromise and settlement be set forth in this Consent Decree (“Consent Decree”). It is understood and agreed that this Consent Decree is in compromise of disputed claims, and that this Consent Decree shall not in any way be construed as an admission by Defendants of a violation of any federal, state, or local statute, law or regulation, or a violation of any right of the aggrieved individuals or any other person.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows, the Court finds appropriate and therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. This Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in EEOC Charge Nos. 310-200307569, 310-2003-07570, 310-2003-07571, 310-2003-07572, 310-2003-07573, 310-2003-07574, 310-2003-07575, 310-2003-07576, 310-2003-07578, 310-2003-07579, 310-2003-07580, 310-200307582, 310-2003-07583, 310-2003-07584. This Decree further resolves all issues that were raised

CONSENT DECREE

2

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 22-1 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 3 of 9

or could have been raised in the Complaints filed by the EEOC and the Plaintiff Intervenors in this civil action. The EEOC waives further claims and/or litigation on all issues that it raised or could have raised in the above-referenced Charges and Complaints. The EEOC does not waive processing or litigating charges other than the above-referenced Charges.
2. Defendants agree that they shall conduct all employment practices in a manner which does not subject any employee to racial harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
3. Defendants and their officers, agents, management (including supervisory employees), successors and assigns, and all those in active concert or participation with them, or any of them, agree to refrain from engaging in any policy or practice that is intended to or is known to them to have the effect of harassing or intimidating any employee on the basis of his/her race and/or creating, facilitating or permitting the existence of a work environment that is racially hostile to its employees.

4. Plaintiff EEOC and Plaintiff Intervenors agree that in the event of any violation or alleged or suspected violation of Defendant's obligations under the terms of this Consent Decree, Plaintiff EEOC will notify Defendant JEA immediately in writing of any such violation or alleged or suspected violation. The EEOC and Defendants agree that they will meet and confer about such violation or alleged or suspected violation in an effort to resolve the matter without court action for a period of sixty (60 ) days of the Defendant's receipt of the written notice. Plaintiff EEOC and Plaintiff Intervenors agree that they will not file any legal proceeding including but not limited to a motion for contempt of this Consent Decree, unless the EEOC has determined that even after conferring, the Defendants have failed to adequately address the

CONSENT DECREE

3

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 22-1 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 4 of 9

concern or alleged or suspected violation, and is thus in noncompliance with the terms of this decree.

5. Defendants agrees to post the Notice appended hereto as “Attachment A” on the employee bulletin board(s) in prominent and conspicuous locations at the Pinehurst Alzheimer Special Care Center and all other Tyler Group Ltd. facilities within ten (l0) days after entry of this Consent Decree. Defendants will report to the EEOC that they have complied with this requirement within fourteen (14) days after posting the Notice. This Notice shall remain posted during the two-year pendency of this Consent Decree.
6. The Notice shall also inform employees where to report violations of Defendants’ policy against harassment, the name of the designated company official to whom they should report said violations, along with the address and telephone number of the Dallas District Office of the EEOC. The notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Consent Decree. In the event that the persons and/or departments to whom individuals should make complaints alleging racial harassment, race-based discrimination and/or retaliation change during the term of the Consent Decree such that the information contained in the notice is no longer accurate, Defendants shall immediately prepare and post a revised notice that contains the correct information. Defendants shall promptly thereafter forward a copy of the revised notice to the EEOC.
7. Defendants agree to conduct training once a year for all of its employees and managers at the Pinehurst Alzheimer’s Special Care Center and all other Tyler Group Ltd. facilities in Texas, advising them of the requirements and prohibitions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The training will inform the employees of the complaint procedure for individuals who believe they have experienced discrimination. The training will also advise the

CONSENT DECREE

4

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 22-1 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 5 of 9

employees of the consequences of violating Title VII. The training will also include a specific discussion or instruction relating to the issue of racial harassment and a racially hostile work environment. The training shall be at least two hours in duration. Defendants agree to give written notice to the EEOC within fourteen (14) days after each training session, providing the following information: (a) the date and location of the training; (b) the list of employees attending; (c) the name of the person providing the training; and (d) the substance of the training.
8. Defendants agree they shall impose substantial discipline--up to and including termination, suspension without pay or demotion--upon any supervisor or manager who engages in racial discrimination or race-based harassment or permits any such conduct to occur in his or her work area or among employees under his or her supervision, or who retaliates against any person who complains or participates in any investigation or proceeding concerning any such conduct. Defendants shall communicate this policy to all of their supervisors and managers.
9. Defendants agrees that they shall continue to advise all managers and supervisors of their duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure employees’ compliance with the company’s policy against racial harassment, and to report any incidents and/or complaints of racial discrimination, race-based harassment and/or retaliation of which they become aware to the persons charged with handling such complaints.
10. Defendants agree that they shall include “commitment to equal employment opportunity” as a criterion for qualification for supervisory positions.
11. Defendants agree that, in response to any request for references for any of the Plaintiff Intervenors that are directed to the Administrator of the Pinehurst facility, Defendants will merely confirm the dates of employment and position held of the individual in question.

CONSENT DECREE

5

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 22-1 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 6 of 9

12. Defendants agree to pay One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($170.000) to resolve all claims for damages to the Plaintiff Intervenors. This payment is made in recognition of Plaintiff Intervenors’ claims for emotional distress and punitive damages and not for any alleged lost pay. The aggrieved individuals shall be responsible for any tax liability arising out of the payment and shall indemnify and hold Defendants harmless therefrom.
13. Within seven (7) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Defendants will issue a check, made payable to each Plaintiff Intervenor and her counsel, Stuckey, Garrigan & Castetter Law Offices, in the amount of $12,142.85 each. The checks will be sent to Alex Castetter with a copy of the checks sent to EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Suzanne M. Anderson, 207 S. Houston Street, Third Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202.
14. Defendants agree to provide each of the Plaintiff Intervenors with a neutral letter of reference, providing the dates of her employment, the last position held and the last salary earned.
15. Defendants agree to forward to the EEOC copies of all complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of race or retaliation against the Defendants, including any notes or other written documentation evidencing Defendant’s investigation of the complaints and the remedial action taken, if any, during the 2-year term of this Consent Decree.
16. Defendants agrees to report to the EEOC within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Consent Decree regarding its compliance with the agreements set forth in paragraphs 5 through 13, above. Defendants shall report to the EEOC regarding training as specifically outlined in paragraph No. 7.
17. All reports to the EEOC required by this Decree shall be sent to Suzanne M.

CONSENT DECREE

6

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 22-1 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 7 of 9

Anderson, Supervisory Trial Attorney, EEOC, 207 S. Houston, Third Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202. 18. If Defendants fail to tender payment or otherwise fails to timely comply with the terms of paragraphs 12 -13, above, Defendants shall:
a. Pay interest at the rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6621(b) on any untimely or unpaid amounts from date of non-compliance; and
b. Bear any additional costs incurred by the EEOC caused by the noncompliance or delay of the Defendants.
19. Neither the EEOC, the Plaintiff Intervenors nor the Defendants shall contest the validity of this Consent Decree nor the jurisdiction of the federal district court to enforce this Consent Decree and its terms or the right of any party to the Consent Decree to bring an enforcement action upon breach of any term of this Consent Decree by either such party, except to the extent that any party has failed to comply with the provisions in Paragraph 4 of this Decree. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude the EEOC from enforcing this Decree in the event that Defendants fail to perform the promises and representations contained herein, violation or alleged or suspected violation, except to the extent that any party has failed to comply with the provisions in Paragraph 4 of this Decree. The EEOC shall determine whether Defendant has complied with the terms of this Consent Decree and shall be authorized to seek compliance with the Consent Decree through civil action in the United States District Court. Prior to seeking judicial action, the EEOC must first notify the Defendant and follow the procedures set forth in Paragraph 4 of this Decree.
20. The term of this Decree shall be for two (2) years. 21. The parties to this Consent Decree agree to bear their own costs and attorney’s fees associated with the above-referenced Complaint.

CONSENT DECREE

7

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 22-1 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 8 of 9

SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this

day of

,

2005.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

CONSENT DECREE

8

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 22-1 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 9 of 9

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF EEOC

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

/s/ Robert A. Canino ROBERT A. CANINO Regional Attorney Oklahoma Bar No. 011782
/s/ Suzanne M. Anderson SUZANNE M. ANDERSON Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas Bar No. 14009470
U.S. EEOC 207 S. Houston Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 253-2740 (214) 253-2749 fax suzanne.anderson@eeoc.gov
FOR THE PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS:
/s/ Alex A. Castetter ALEX A. CASTETTER Texas Bar No. 00783808
Stuckey, Garrigan & Castetter 2803 C North Street P.O. Box 631902 Nacogdoches, Texas 75963-1902 (936)560-6020 (936) 560-9578 fax aacstugar@cox-internet.com

/s/ Patrick J. Maher PATRICK J. MAHER Attorney-in-charge Texas Bar No. 12836625
Shannon, Gracey, Ratliff & Miller, LLP 777 Main Street, Suite 3800 Ft. Worth, Texas 76102-5304 (817) 877-8167 direct line (817) 336-3735 fax Pmaher@shannongracey.com

CONSENT DECREE

9

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 22-2 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 1 of 3

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Dallas District Office

207 S. Houston Street, 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202-4726 (214) 253-2721

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
This NOTICE is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered in the case of EEOC and Rosemary Baker et. al. v. Jerry Erwin Associates (JEA) Senior Living Center et. al., Civil Action No. 6:05-CV-162. This NOTICE will be conspicuously posted for a period of two (2) years at this facility and in all places where employment notices are posted. It must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
POLICY: Discrimination of any kind can and often will detract from employees’ job performance, discourage employees from remaining on the job, keep employees from advancing in their careers and lower overall employee morale and productivity. It is the policy of JEA Senior Living Center that discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, age, or religion is unacceptable and will not be condoned. This is a zero tolerance policy.
PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this policy to reaffirm and amplify the position of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidelines on discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, age, and religion and to reiterate JEA Senior Living Center’s policy on discrimination.
SCOPE: This policy extends to all employees of JEA Senior Living Center, both management, nonmanagement, and temporary/probationary.
DEFINITION: Discrimination occurs when an employment decision is made on the basis of race, national origin, sex, age, or religion, rather than on legitimate factors. Put another way, discrimination occurs when an employer rejects a member of one group in favor of a member of another group consisting of persons of a different race, national origin, sex, age, or religion. Thus, if an employer refuses to hire or promote an applicant because of his or her race, national origin, sex, age, or religion, and, in his place, hires or promotes a person of a different on the basis of race, national origin, sex, age, or religion, then that employer violates Title VII. Discrimination is often a result of stereotypes. In some cases, those stereotypes extend to all members of a disfavored group. If race, national origin, sex, age, or religion plays a role in the employment decision-making process, the employment decision is illegal discrimination. Some examples of discrimination are:
* Refusing to hire a particular race, national origin, sex, age, or religion; * Refusing to hire an applicant because they are married to someone of a disfavored race, national origin, sex, age, or religion; * Paying employees of different races, national origins, sex, ages, or religions differently for performing the same job; * Treating employees of one race, national origin, sex, age, or religion better than employees of another race, national origin, sex, age, or religion; * Giving members of one race, national origin, sex, age, or religion a better chance at advancement than members of another race; * Using racial slurs in the workplace. * Allowing racial, sexist, agist, or religious graffiti to exist on the premises.

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 22-2 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 2 of 3
This list is in no means exhaustive. There are other forms of discrimination.
RESPONSIBILITY: Each level of management is responsible for ensuring that all personnel policies, procedure, and activities are in full compliance with applicable federal, state, and local equal employment laws, statutes, rules, and regulations regarding racial discrimination. All employees are expected to read, understand, and follow JEA Senior Living Center’s policy against discrimination.
REPORTING PROCEDURES: Any employee who believes that he or she has been subjected to discrimination based on that person’s race, national origin, sex, age, or religion is expected to report the conduct as soon as possible to either that person’s immediate supervisor, any supervisor or manager with JEA Senior Living Center or to the Human Resources Department. The Human Resources Department may be contacted at JEA Senior Living, 12115 NE 99th Street, Suite 1800, Vancouver, Washington, 98682-0011 or by telephone at 360-254-9442. All such reports should be addressed to Jerry Erwin or James Culmore. Supervisors and managers who are informed of an alleged incident of racial discrimination must immediately notify the Human Resources Department. JEA Senior Living Centers will maintain a written log of all complaints of racial discrimination. This log will include the results of all investigations into claims of race discrimination.
A person either alternatively, or in addition to reporting such an allegation to companyofficials, may contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the purposes of filing a charge of employment discrimination. The address and telephone number of the U.S. EEOC office is 207 South Houston, Dallas, Texas 75202; (214) 253-2700. Information about your rights and how to file a charge is available on the Internet at www.eeoc.gov.
INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS: A complete investigation of each complaint will be undertaken immediately by the Human Resources Department. The investigation may include interviews of all employees and supervisors at the facility, the inspection of documents, including personnel records, and full inspection of the premises.
PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATION: Employees engaged in illegal discrimination, including supervisors and managers, can expect serious disciplinary action. After appropriate investigation, any employee, whether management or non-management, who has been found to have discriminated against another employee will be subject to appropriate sanctions, depending on the circumstances, from a written warning in his or her personnel file up to and including termination of employment.
RETALIATION: There shall be no retaliation against any employee because that person has opposed what they believe to be unlawful employment practices, including racial discrimination; or has filed a charge of discrimination, or has given testimony, assistance, or has participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Autonation, Inc. will not punish you for reporting racial discrimination simply because you have made a complaint under the above guidelines.
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY: The question of whether a particular action or incident constitutes

Case 6:05-cv-00162-MHS Document 22-2 Filed 12/14/2005 Page 3 of 3
racial discrimination requires a determination based on all available facts. JEA Senior Living Center will therefore make a concerted effort to protect the privacy of all personnel. Confidential information will be shared on a need-to-know basis to complete the investigation and to deal appropriately with the situation. EXCEPTIONS: There are no exceptions to this policy. THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE REMOVED OR DEFACED BY ANYONE. THIS NOTICE WILL BE POSTED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS.

__________ Date
12/13/05 Date

_______________________________________ JEA Senior Living Center
/s/ Robert A. Canino Robert A. Canino, Regional Attorney Dallas District Office, EEOC

 </s> CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716645287361531-L_9...

U.S. District Court [LIVE] Eastern District of TEXAS LIVE (Tyler) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:05-cv-00162-MHS

CLOSED

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. JEA Senior Living Assigned to: Judge Michael H. Schneider Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 05/10/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Mediator
Allen Butler Mediator

Plaintiff
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Robert A Canino Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 207 S Houston St 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 Dalla 214/655-3335 Email: robert.canino@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Suzanne Elizabeth Anderson EEOC 207 South Houston Street Dallas, TX 75202 214/253-2740 Fax: 214/655-3331 Email: suzanne.anderson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Rosemary Baker

represented by Alex Arthur Castetter Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter 2803 North Street PO Box 631902 Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1902 936-560-6020 Fax: 19365609578 Email: alex@sgclaw.org

1 of 6

6/12/2007 2:44 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff Mattie Bowser
Intervenor Plaintiff Teresa Bowser
Intervenor Plaintiff Deaquinita Clark
Intervenor Plaintiff Hazel Dixon
Intervenor Plaintiff Vernell Evans
Intervenor Plaintiff Tammy Hartsfield
Intervenor Plaintiff Aquanetta Mims
Intervenor Plaintiff Voncella Street
2 of 6

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716645287361531-L_9...
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex Arthur Castetter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex Arthur Castetter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex Arthur Castetter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex Arthur Castetter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex Arthur Castetter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex Arthur Castetter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex Arthur Castetter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex Arthur Castetter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
6/12/2007 2:44 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff Phyllis Temple
Intervenor Plaintiff Sherry Warlick
Intervenor Plaintiff Linda Warren
Intervenor Plaintiff Tiffany Watson
Intervenor Plaintiff Tijuana Watson
V. Defendant JEA Senior Living doing business as Pinehurst Alzheimer's Special Care Center

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716645287361531-L_9...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex Arthur Castetter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex Arthur Castetter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex Arthur Castetter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex Arthur Castetter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alex Arthur Castetter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Patrick Joseph Maher Shannon Gracey Ratliff & Miller - Fort Worth 777 Main Street Suite 3800 Fort Worth, TX 76102 817/877-8167 Fax: 817/336-3735 Email: pmaher@shannongracey.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3 of 6

6/12/2007 2:44 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716645287361531-L_9...

Date Filed 05/10/2005 05/10/2005 05/11/2005 05/11/2005 06/22/2005 07/06/2005 07/22/2005 08/17/2005
08/24/2005
08/24/2005
08/31/2005 09/06/2005
09/13/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against JEA Senior Living, filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(fnt, ) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
Summons Issued as to JEA Senior Living. (fnt, ) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
2 Magistrate Consent Form Mailed to US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (fnt, ) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
3 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Michael H. Schneider for all further proceedings. Judge Leonard Davis no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 5/11/05. (fnt, ) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
4 ANSWER to Complaint by JEA Senior Living.(Maher, Patrick) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
5 ORDER Setting Scheduling Conference for 9/15/2005 10:30 AM before Judge Michael H. Schneider.. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 7/1/2005. (rvw, ) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Suzanne Elizabeth Anderson on behalf of US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Anderson, Suzanne) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
7 MOTION to Intervene by Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Hartsfield, Aquanetta Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiffany Watson, Tijuana Watson. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Castetter, Alex) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
8 ORDER granting 7 Motion to Intervene by Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Hartsfield, Aquanetta Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiffany Watson and Tijuana Watson . Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 8/24/2005. (rvw, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
9 Intervenor ORIGINAL COMPLAINT , filed by Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Hartsfield, Aquanetta Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiffany Watson, Tijuana Watson.(rvw, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
10 NOTICE by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Scheduling Order (Anderson, Suzanne) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
11 NOTICE of Disclosure by Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Hartsfield, Aquanetta Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiffany Watson, Tijuana Watson (Castetter, Alex) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
12 Defendant's Original ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by JEA Senior Living.(Maher, Patrick) (Entered: 09/13/2005)

4 of 6

6/12/2007 2:44 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716645287361531-L_9...

09/15/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
09/27/2005 11/15/2005
11/15/2005 11/18/2005 11/30/2005 12/01/2005
12/14/2005 12/15/2005 12/16/2005

13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael H. Schneider : Scheduling Conference held on 9/15/2005. (Court Reporter Ron Mason.) (lgp, ) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
14 NOTICE of Disclosure by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Anderson, Suzanne) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
15 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/6/2006 09:00 AM before Judge Michael H. Schneider. Amended Pleadings due by 11/15/2005. Discovery due by 1/31/2006. Joinder of Parties due by 11/15/2005. Jury Selection set for 4/10/2006 09:00AM before Judge Michael H. Schneider. Mediation Completion due by 12/9/2005. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 3/10/2006.. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 9/15/2005. (rvw, ) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
16 NOTICE of Disclosure by JEA Senior Living (Maher, Patrick) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
17 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Hartsfield, Aquanetta Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiffany Watson, Tijuana Watson.(Castetter, Alex) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
18 AMENDED COMPLAINT against JEA Senior Living, filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Anderson, Suzanne) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
19 NOTICE of Disclosure by Rosemary Baker, Mattie Bowser, Teresa Bowser, Deaquinita Clark, Hazel Dixon, Vernell Evans, Tammy Hartsfield, Aquanetta Mims, Voncella Street, Phyllis Temple, Sherry Warlick, Linda Warren, Tiffany Watson, Tijuana Watson (Castetter, Alex) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
20 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery For Expert Witness Disclosure by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Anderson, Suzanne) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/30/2005 (fnt, ). (Entered: 11/30/2005)
21 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Pltf's deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses is extended to 12-16-05 and that deft's deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses is extended to 1-10-06. The Scheduling Order otherwise is not modified. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 12/01/05. cc:attys 12-1-05 (mll, ) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
22 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consent Decree by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice -- Attachment A)(Anderson, Suzanne) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
23 REPORT of Mediation by Allen Butler. Mediation result: Settled(Butler, Allen) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
24 ORDER re 22 Settlement Agreement/Consent Decree filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 12/16/05. cc:attys 12-16-05(mll, ) (Entered: 12/16/2005)

5 of 6

6/12/2007 2:44 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?716645287361531-L_9...

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/12/2007 14:46:07

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

6:05-cv-00162-MHS

3

Cost:

0.24

6 of 6

6/12/2007 2:44 PM


[CONTENT] May 2005 | the Dallas District Office | EEOC | JEA | Pinehurst Alzheimer's Special Care Center | the U.S. District Court | the Eastern District | Texas | the Civirl Rights Act | 1964 ||| fourteen | one | one ||| August 2005 ||| December 2005 ||| two-year | Texas | two years | EEOC | 170,000 | 14 ||| 2005 | last 2007 |||  [SUMMARY] In May 2005, the Dallas District Office of the EEOC brought this lawsuit against JEA Senior Living, doing business as Pinehurst Alzheimer's Special Care Center, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, black, in violation of Title VIII of the Civirl Rights Act of 1964.  Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendant subjected the fourteen charging parties, female employees, by creating a hostile work environment based upon their race leading to either actual or constructive termination, and in one case retaliation when one claimant complained to her supervisors.  The complainants intervened in the lawsuit in August 2005. Following some discovery, the parties settled the lawsuit in December 2005 through a consent decree.

The two-year degree, containing promises not to discriminate, and requires the defendant to: provide a neutral reference for complainants, provide annual training for all Texas facility employees for two years, post notice of employee rights, advise supervisors of their duty to monitor the work areas and report harassment incidents, report any discrimination-related complaints to the EEOC, along with the actions taken, and pay $170,000 to be distributed among 14 individuals.

The decree was entered in 2005 and scheduled to last 2007. No further docket entries exist, so the case is closed.