1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO (CA Bar No. 084965) JONATHAN T. PECK (VA Bar No. 12303)
2 SANYA P. HILL (WA Bar No. 18739) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
3 San Francisco District Office 901 Market Street, Suite 500
4 San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone No. (415) 356-5235
5 Facsimile No. (415) 356-5046

6 LUCILA G. ROSAS (CA Bar No. 187345) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
7 San Jose Local Office 96 North Third Street, Suite 200
8 San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone No. (408) 291-6401
9 Facsimile No. (408) 291-4539

10 Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN JOSE DIVISION

)

15 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

COMMISSION,

)

16

)

)

17

Plaintiff,

)

)

18

v.

)

)

19 ROWTOWN, INC. D/B/A

)

THE FISH HOPPER RESTAURANT,

)

20

)

Defendant.

)

21

)

COMPLAINT
Civil Rights Employment Discrimination
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

) 22

23

NATURE OF THE ACTION

24

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

25 Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, retaliation and

26 constructive discharge and to provide appropriate relief to Ms. Masumeh Zanganeh and other

27 similarly situated female employees of the Defendant. As alleged below, Defendant unlawfully

28 subjected Ms. Zanganeh and other similarly situated female employees to sexual harassment and

COMPLAINT
1

1 a hostile work environment. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant subjected Ms. Zanganeh to

2 retaliation and constructive discharge because she engaged in a protected activity.

3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

5 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706 (f) (1) and (3) of

6 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5 (f) (1) and

7 (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981(a).

8

INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

9

2. This action is appropriate for assignment to the San Jose division because the

10 unlawful employment practices alleged were committed in Monterey County, within the

11 jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

12

PARTIES

13

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”), is

14 the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and

15 enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706 (f) (1)

16 and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5 (f) (1) and (3).

17

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Rowtown, Inc. D/B/A The Fish Hopper

18 Restaurant (“Defendant or Fish Hopper”), has continuously been, and is now, a California

19 business, qualified and doing business in the State of California and the City of Monterey and has

20 continuously had and does now have at least 15 employees.

21

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

22 industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42

23 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

24

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

25

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ms. Masumeh

26 Zanganeh filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All

27 conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

28 ///

COMPLAINT
2

1

7. Since at least 1997, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices of

2 sex discrimination in violation of Section 703 (a) (1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (a) (1).

3 These practices include subjecting Ms. Zanganeh and other similarly situated female employees

4 of the Defendant to sexual harassment, creating a hostile, abusive, intimidating and

5 discriminatory work environment, including constructive discharge.

6

8. Since at least 1998, Defendant has subjected Ms. Zanganeh to adverse

7 employment actions in retaliation for her opposition to and rejection of the sexual harassment in

8 violation of Section 704 (a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-3 (a). These practices include

9 retaliatory discipline and constructive discharge.

10

9. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Ms. Zanganeh

11 and other similarly situated female employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise

12 adversely affect their employment status because of their sex and on account of retaliation and

13 constructive discharge.

14

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are

15 intentional.

16

11. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice

17 and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Zanganeh and other similarly

18 situated female employees of the Defendant.

19

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

20

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

21

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, their officers, successors,

22 assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual

23 harassment, retaliation, constructive discharge and any other employment practice which

24 discriminates on the basis of sex.

25

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

26 equal employment opportunities for women and those persons who complain about sexual

27 harassment, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment

28 practices.

COMPLAINT
3

1

C. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Zanganeh and other similarly situated female

2 employees by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be

3 determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful

4 employment practices.

5

D. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Zanganeh and other similarly situated female

6 employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the

7 unlawful employment practices described above, including but not limited to medical expenses,

8 with interest, in amounts to be determined at trial.

9

E. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Zanganeh and other similarly situated female

10 employees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses caused by the

11 above unlawful conduct, including pain and suffering, emotional distress, indignity, loss of

12 enjoyment of life, loss of self-esteem and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

13

F. Order Defendant to pay Ms. Zanganeh and other similarly situated female

14 employees punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts

15 to be determined at trial.

16

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

17 interest.

18

K. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

19 ///

20 ///

21 ///

22 ///

23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

COMPLAINT
4

1

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2

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

3

4

5

Respectfully submitted,

6

7

NICHOLAS INZEO

Acting General Counsel

8

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

9

COMMISSION

Office of the General Counsel

10

Washington, DC 20507

11

12 Dated:
13
14

4/9/03

s/William R. Tamayo WILLIAM R. TAMAYO Regional Attorney

15

16 Dated: 17

4/9/03

s/Jonathan T. Peck JONATHAN T. PECK Supervisory Trial Attorney

18

19 Dated: 20

4/9/03

s/Lucila G. Rosas LUCILA G. ROSAS Trial Attorney

21

22

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

23

San Jose Local Office

96 North Third Street, Suite 200

24

San Jose, CA 95112

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT
5

 </s> 1 Matthew T. Losinski, Esq. (CA Bar No. 177323) Dorothy K. Chow, Esq. (CA Bar No. 208364)
2 LAW OFFICES OF CHOW & LOSINSKI 3 109 Jackson Street, Suite 220
Hayward, California 94544-1948 4 Telephone No.: (510) 727-9817
Facsimile No.: (510) 582-2334
5
6 Attorneys for Intervenor MASUMEH ZANGANEH
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY)

13 COMMISSION,

)

)

14

Plaintiff,

)

)

15

v

)

16

)

ROWTOWN, INC. D/B/A

)

17 THE FISH HOPPER RESTAURANT, )

)

18 and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,

)

19

)

Defendants,

)

20

)

MASUMEH ZANGANEH, individual, )

21

)

22

Intervenor.

)

)

23 -----------------------------------------------------

CIVIL ACTION NO. C0301522 HRL
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

24
Intervenor Masumeh Zanganeh complains and alleges as follows:
25
PARTIES
26
1. At all material times, Intervenor Masumeh Zanganeh was a resident of the State of
27
28 California. The employment contract on which she sues herein was made in and was to be

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
1

1 performed in the State of California. At all material times, Intervenor Masumeh Zanganeh

2 worked for Rowtown, Inc. d/b/a The Fish Hopper Restaurant (hereafter “Defendant” or “Fish
3
Hopper”) in the State of California.
4
2. Intervenor Masumeh Zanganeh is informed and believes that defendant Rowtown, Inc.
5
6 d/b/a The Fish Hopper Restaurant is a California corporation with its principal place of business

7 in the State of California.
8
3. The true names and capacities of the defendants named herein as Does 1 through 50,
9
inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, are unknown to Intervenor who
10
11 therefore sues such defendants by fictitious names under California Code of Civil Procedure

12 §474. Intervenor is informed and believes that Doe defendants are California residents.

13 Intervenor will amend this Complaint to show such true names and capacities when they have

14
been determined. Each defendant was an agent of the other defendants and ratified the conduct
15
of the other defendants.
16

17

JURISDICTION AND VENUE AS TO FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

18

4. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343

19 and 1345.

20

5. The unlawful employment practices alleged herein were committed in Monterey County,

21 within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

22

JURISDICTION AND VENUE AS TO REMAINING

CAUSES OF ACTION OTHER THAN FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

23

6. This is an action for sexual harassment based on state law pursuant to California
24

Government Code Section 12940 et seq., and the court should exercise jurisdiction over this
25

action pursuant to section 1367 of Title 28 of the United States Code, for the following reasons:
26

(1) the action for the Title VII federal claim which is alleged in the First Cause of Action of this
27

Complaint arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000 et seq.
28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
2

1 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981(a), and the jurisdiction of the

2 action is conferred upon the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and

3 1345; (2) as more clearly appears below, the remaining causes of action based on California

4 Government Code Section 12940 et seq., and California State Law are so related to the claim in

5 the action alleged in the First Cause of Action that all Causes of Action form part of the same

6 case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution; (3) the action for sexual

7 harassment based on state law pursuant to California Government Code Section 12940 et seq.,

8 and the remaining causes of action, which is based on California State Law neither raise a novel

9 or complex issue of state law, nor substantially predominate over the federal claim which is

10 alleged in the First Cause of Action of this Complaint; and 4) there are no other compelling

11 reasons for the court to decline jurisdiction over the Second through Tenth (inclusive) causes of

12 action for sexual harassment based on state law pursuant to California Government Code Section

13 12940 et seq. and California State Law.

14

7. The unlawful employment practices alleged herein were committed in Monterey

15 County, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of

16 California.

17

INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

18

8. This action is appropriate for assignment to the San Jose division because the unlawful

19 employment practices alleged were committed in Monterey County, within the jurisdiction of the

20 United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

21

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

22

9. Prior to filing of this action, Ms. Zanganeh filed a charge with the Equal Employment

23 Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Intervenor in this action.

24

10. Ms. Zanganeh concurrently filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

25 (EEOC) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) a charge of

26 discrimination in a timely manner and the DFEH issued a right-to-sue letter in conjunction with

27 a decision to defer its investigation of the charge to the EEOC.

28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
3

1 11. On April 10, 2003, EEOC filed this lawsuit on behalf of all female employees in 2 Defendant’s restaurant, including Ms. Zanganeh. All conditions precedent to the institution of

3 this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

4

12. Ms. Zanganeh hereby files a Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff under Rule 24(a)(1) of Fed. R.

5 Civ. P. because, as an “aggrieved person”, she has an unconditional right to intervene in a civil action

6 brought by the EEOC as provided in 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f)(1).

7

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

8

13. On or about September 28, 1997, Intervenor Masumeh Zanganeh began employment at

9
The Fish Hopper Restaurant as an AM server and hostess.
10

11

14. From the onset of employment, Defendant Doe 1, the executive chief, Defendant Doe 2,

12 another server, Defendant Doe 5, owner, as well the restaurant cooks and bussers, began

13 subjecting Intervenor Masumeh Zanganeh to a pattern of offensive and unwanted sexual

14
behavior at work, including, but not limited to:
15
A. Walking up behind Intervenor and giving her a non-concensual shoulder
16

17

massage;

18

B. Walking up and putting their arms around her;

19

C. Touching Intervenor on her back and shoulders;

20
D. Kissing her forehead and nonconsensual hugs;
21
E. Making statements about Intervonor’s body parts;
22

23

F. Continually staring at Intervenor’s buttocks;

24

G. Touching Intervenor by purposely bumping into her and bushing up against

25

her;

26
H. Whistling at Intervenor when she walked back to the kitchen;
27

28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
4

1

I. Asking inappropriate questions regarding Intervenor’s sex life such as, “How

2

many times a day does she have sex?”, “How old was she the first time she

3
had sex?”, “Did she moan or did she scream in bed?” and “Did she like it soft
4

or hard?”;
5

6

J. Making lewd sexual statements to Intervenor such as, “If she were my

7

girlfriend, I would do her five (5) times a day.”,

8
K. When Intervenor would ask for anything extra for her tickets, the cooks would
9
make statements such as, “What am I going to get for it?”
10

11

L. The above conduct occurred every time I was scheduled to work between the

12

months of September 1997 and January 1998. Defendants’ gradually

13

increased the frequency and the explicitness of the above listed sexual

14
comments and actions. They even stated unanimously that if they all had it
15
their way again, they would all choose to lose their virginity to Intervenor.
16

17

15. Since the first week Intervenor was employed, she brought these complaints to the

18 attention of Defendant Doe 3, manager. Defendant Doe 3 did nothing to stop the harassment and

19 instead stated to Intervenor that she was getting all the attention because she was pretty.
20
Defendant Doe 3 did nothing to rectify the problems Intervenor complained of nor prevented
21
future problems from reoccurring. Instead, management began to retaliate against Intervenor for
22
23 complaining by “writing her up” for things she had done a week prior. Management specifically

24 targeted Intervenor for “write-ups” and nobody else as another employee who was also late for
25
work was not written up. Intervenor never encouraged the sexual behavior nor indicated in any
26
way that it was welcome. In fact, Intervenor’s attire was that of a long black skirt. Since
27
28 management did not do anything to stop the harassment, Intervenor began telling Defendant Doe

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
5

1 1, the executive chef, to stop his harassing behavior. He just laughed. When Intervenor told

2 Defendant Doe 4, another manager, that she did not feel that she was being treated right,
3
Defendant Doe 4 stated to Intervenor that “it is all up to you.” After that statement by Defendant
4
Doe 4, Intervenor knew that the harassment was not going to stop.
5

6

16. On or about January 13, 1998, Intervenor was working the soup station when

7 Defendant Doe 2 came up from behind her and grabbed her breasts and kissed her cheek.
8
Intervenor was startled and spilled a cup of soup on her hand. She then turned around and
9
screamed for him to get off her. Defendant Doe 2 then told Intervenor not to get so emotional.
10
11 Intervenor looked around and saw that the entire kitchen crew was staring at her because she was

12 yelling. Defendant Doe 1 saw the entire incident and did nothing. Intervenor was left

13 embarrassed, angry and humiliated.
14
17. Intervenor fought back her tears and went to inform Defendant Doe 3, a manager, of
15
what had happened. Intervenor was not able to inform Defendant Doe 3 of what had occurred
16
17 until about two hours later. When Intervenor was finally able to tell Defendant Doe 3 of what

18 had happened, her response was, “Didn’t we already talk to him about this last time?” Defendant

19 Doe 3 then failed to fully investigate the matter, failed to acknowledge the severe psychological
20
reaction to the assault Intervenor had experienced, failed to discipline or warn Defendant Doe 2
21
about his behavior, and indicated in various ways that Intervenor was responsible for the assault
22
23 and other sexual behavior.

24

18. After each report by Intervenor of Defendant Doe 2’s behavior, Intervenor was either

25
“written-up” for things she had done a week ago, reassigned to the back tables of the restaurant
26
where the tips were not nearly as lucrative and management acted in a hostile manner toward
27
28 her. Another server stated to Intervenor that, “they were probably trying to get her out since she

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
6

1 is a threat to the company.” Intervenor was forced to quit her employment on or about January

2 19, 1998 because of the Fish Hopper’s failure to take immediate or appropriate corrective action
3
in response to her complaints of harassment and her complaints of the supervisors’ retaliation in
4
being written-up unfairly and reassigned to an economically less lucrative assignment.
5

6

19. Several Fish Hopper employees with no need to know were told by Defendant Doe 3,

7 manager, about the sexual behavior and assault Intervenor had experienced, and that she had

8
overreacted. These communications resulted in further anguish and emotional distress to
9
Intervenor.
10

11

20. On or about December 31, 1997, Intervenor went to the back of the kitchen to retrieve

12 some of her belongings. Defendant Doe 5, owner, was in the back of the kitchen and Intervenor

13 stopped to inquire as to how business was fairing. When he responded that business was “great”,
14
Intervenor attempted to give Defendant Doe 5 a “high-five”. Instead of doing same, Defendant
15
Doe 5 wrapped his arms around Intervenor giving her a hug. Intervenor pulled away from
16
17 Defendant Doe 5 and pushed him off her.

18

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Sex Discrimination/Sexual Harassment)

19

(Title VII)

20
21. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20 and 44 are realleged and incorporated herein
21

by reference. This cause of action is pleaded against all defendants.
22

23

22. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000

24 et seq. and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981(a) to correct unlawful

25 employment practices on the basis of sex, retaliation and constructive discharge and to provide

26 appropriate relief to Ms. Masumeh Zanganeh (“Intervenor”). As alleged below, Defendants

27 unlawfully subjected Intervenor to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment.

28 Intervenor also alleges that Defendants subjected her to retaliation and constructive discharge

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
7

1 because she engaged in a protected activity.

2

23. Intervenor was employed as a server and hostess in Defendant’s restaurant located in the

3 City of Monterey, California.

4

24. During her employment, Intervenor had been subjected to sexual harassment from both

5 her co-workers and her supervisor in the form of statements and inappropriate touching.

6

25. Intervenor complained repeatedly to the Managers about the conduct of the co-workers

7 and the supervisor; however the Managers took no corrective action and ignored Intervenor’s

8 complaints.

9

26. Further, Defendant Fish Hopper and its Managers subjected Intervenor to adverse

10 employment actions in retaliation for her opposition to and rejection of the sexual harassment.

11

27. Because Intervenor could no longer tolerate the discriminatory conduct toward her, she

12 voluntarily terminated her employment.

13

28. The effect of Defendants’ practices complained of above has deprived Intervenor of equal

14 employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected her employment status because of

15 her sex and on account of retaliation and constructive discharge.

16

29. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional and were done

17 with malice and/or reckless disregard to the federally protected rights of Intervenor.

18

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Sex Discrimination/Sexual Harassment)

19

(Cal. Government Code §12940)

20
30. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, 22 through 29, and 44 are realleged and
21

22 incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pleaded against all defendants.

23

31. Defendant Fish Hopper was at all material times an employer within the meaning of

24 California Government Code §12926(d) and, as such, barred from discrimination or retaliating in
25
employment decisions on the basis of sex as set forth in California Government code §12940.
26
32. Intervenor was at all material times an employee covered by California Government
27
28 Code §12940 prohibiting discrimination or retaliation in employment on the basis of sex.

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
8

1

33. Defendants and each of them engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination

2 against female employees, including Intervenor, on the basis of sex in violation of California
3
Government Code §12940 by engaging in a course of conduct that included subjecting
4
Intervenor to sexual harassment and hostility because of her sex. This behavior continued until
5
6 Intervenor was constructively terminated.

7

34. Further, Doe defendants and each of them, aided and abetted defendant Fish Hopper in

8
engaging in illegal discrimination on the basis of sex against female employees, including
9
subjecting Intervenor to sexual harassment and hostility because of her sex, in violation of
10

11 California Government Code §12940 (g).

12

35. Intervenor concurrently filed a timely charge of sex discrimination and retaliation with

13 the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing and the United States Equal

14
Employment Opportunity Commission and has received a right-to-sue letter. Thus, she has
15
exhausted her administrative remedies.
16

17

36. As a proximate result of defendants’ conduct, Intervenor has suffered and continues to

18 suffer substantial losses incurred in seeking and performing substitute employment and in

19 earnings, and other employment benefits she would have received had defendants not taken such
20
adverse employment actions against her.
21
37. As a proximate result of defendants’ conduct, Intervenor has suffered and continues to
22
23 suffer embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress, all to her damage in an

24 amount according to proof.
25
38. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and
26
oppressively, in bad faith, with the wrongful intention of injuring Intervenor, from an improper
27
28 and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Intervenor’s rights.

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
9

1 Intervenor thus is entitled to recover punitive damages from defendants in an amount according

2 to proof.
3
39. As a result of defendants’ discriminatory acts as alleged herein, Intervenor has no plain,
4
adequate, or complete remedy at law, and defendants continue to engage in said wrongful
5
6 practices. Therefore, Intervenor requests:

7

(a) That she be made whole and afforded all benefits attendant thereto that would have

8
been afforded Intervenor but for said discrimination; and
9
(b) that defendants, their agents, successors, employees, and those acting in concert
10

11

with them be enjoined permanently from engaging in each of the unlawful practices,

12

policies, usages and customs set forth herein, and that they be required to develop

13

posting policies, grievance procedures, and training regarding sexual harassment.

14
40. As a result of defendants’ discriminatory acts as alleged herein, Intervenor is entitled to
15
reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit as provided by California Government Code §12965
16

17 (b).

18

WHEREFORE, Intervenor requests relief as hereinafter provided.

19

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

20

(Failure to Maintain Environment Free from Harassment)

(California Government Code §12940 (i))

21

41. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, 22 through 29, 31 through 40 and 44, are
22

23 realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pleaded against

24 Defendant Fish Hopper.
25
42. Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment
26
against Intervenor from occurring, and to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to
27

28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
10

1 remedy the harassment, in violation of California Government Code §12940 (i), by engaging in

2 the course of conduct set forth in paragraphs 12 through 18, among other things.
3
43. Specifically, defendant Fish Hopper failed to take any disciplinary action against their
4
employees, such as issuing a formal warning, providing counseling, or imposing probation,
5
6 suspension, or termination.

7

44. Intervenor is informed and believes that defendant Fish Hopper has never had a written

8
policy about sexual harassment, has never conducted any sexual harassment training, and has
9
never posted any sexual harassment policies for its supervisors or employees in a conspicuous
10

11 place as required by law.

12

WHEREFORE, Intervenor requests relief as hereinafter provided.

13

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

14

(Retaliation–California Government Code §12940 (f))

15

45. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, 22 through 29, 31 through 40 and 42

16 through 44 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pleaded
17
against all defendants.
18
46. Defendants and each of them have retaliated against the Intervenor in violation of
19
20 Government Code §12940(f), by engaging in a course of retaliatory conduct, including, among

21 other things, the conduct set forth in paragraphs 12 through 18 above, when she complained

22 about sexual harassment and hostility and conduct based on sex discrimination. This retaliation
23
continued until Intervenor’s constructive discharge which was carried out by managers of
24
25 defendant Fish Hopper and employees acting within the course and scope of their employment.

26

WHEREFORE, Intervenor requests relief as hereinafter provided.

27 ///
28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
11

1

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional infliction of Emotional Distress)
2

3

47. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, 22 through 29, 31 through 40 and 42 through

4 44 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pleaded against all
5
defendants.
6
48. The conduct set forth hereinabove was extreme and outrageous and an abuse of the
7
8 authority and position of defendants and each of them. Said conduct was intended to cause

9 severe emotional distress, or was done in a conscious disregard of the probability of causing such

10 distress. Said conduct exceeded the inherent risks of employment and was not the sort of
11
conduct normally expected to occur in the work place. Defendants and each of them abused
12
their position of authority toward Intervenor, and engaged in conduct intended to humiliate
13
14 Intervenor and to convey the message that she was powerless to defend her rights. Defendant

15 Fish Hopper abused its authority and directly injured Intervenor by its ratification of its

16 employees’ acts and by its managers’ actions in failing to protect and violating the privacy of
17
Intervenor.
18
49. The foregoing conduct did in fact cause Intervenor to suffer extreme emotional distress.
19
20 As a proximate result of said conduct, Intervenor suffered embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation,

21 and emotional distress, and will continue to suffer emotional distress in the future in an amount
22 according to proof.
23
THEREFORE, Intervenor requests relief as hereinafter provided.
24
25 ///
26 ///

27 ///
28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
12

1

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Invasion of Privacy)
2

3

50. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, 22 through 29, 31 through 40, 42 through

4 44, 48 and 49 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pleaded
5
against all defendants.
6
51. Defendant Doe 2, without Intervenor’s consent, repeatedly intruded into Intervenor’s
7
8 privacy by the conduct set forth above.

9

52. Defendant Fish Hopper ratified Defendant Doe 2’s conduct invading Intervenor’s

10 privacy and directly violated Intervenor’s privacy by communicating private information to other
11
employees about Intervenor who had no need to know the information.
12
53. The intrusions described above were offensive and objectionable to Intervenor and to a
13
14 reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. The intrusions were into aspects of Intervenor’s life

15 that were private and were entitled to remain private.

16

WHEREFORE, Intervenor requests relief as hereinafter provided.

17

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18

(Sexual Battery-Civil Code §1708.5)

19

54. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, 22 through 29, 31 through 40, 42 through

20
44, 48, 49 and 51 through 53 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of
21

action is pleaded against all defendants.
22

23

55. The above conduct by Defendant Doe 2 is a violation of Civil Code §1708.5 in that

24 Defendant Doe 2 acted with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate
25
part of Intervenor, and a sexually offensive contact with Intervenor directly occurred. Defendant
26
Doe 2’s conduct also caused Intervenor to suffer imminent apprehension of such a contact
27

28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
13

1 occurring. Defendant Fish Hopper failed to take corrective action and thereby ratified the

2 conduct of Defendant Doe 2 and is therefore liable under the doctrine of respondent superior.

3
WHEREFORE, Intervenor requests relief as hereinafter provied.
4

5

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)

6
56. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, 22 through 29, 31 through 40, 42 through
7

8 44, 48, 49, 51 through 53 and 55 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause

9 of action is pleaded against all defendants

10

57. In carrying out the above conduct, defendants breached a duty owed to Intervenor to

11
provide a workplace free from unfair treatment, discrimination, and retaliation, and abused their
12
positions of authority toward her. Said conduct exceeded the inherent risks of employment and
13

14 was not the sort of conduct normally expected to occur in the workplace. The Fish Hopper

15 violated said duty directly by ratifying the employees’ and managers’ conduct.

16

58. Defendants and each of them knew, or should have known, that said conduct would cause

17
Intervenor extreme emotional distress. As a proximate result of defendants’ negligent conduct,
18
Intervenor suffered and will continue to suffer extreme humiliation, embarrassment, mental
19

20 anguish, and emotional distress in an amount according to proof.

21

WHEREFORE, Intervenor requests relief as hereinafter provided.

22

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

23

(Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract)

24

59. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, 22 through 29, 31 through 40, 42 through 44,

25
48, 49, 51 through 53, 55, 57 and 58 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This
26
cause of action is pleaded against Defendant Fish Hopper.
27

28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
14

1

60. During the entire course of Intervenor’s employment with the Fish Hopper, an

2 employment agreement existed between Intervenor and the Fish Hopper, which included, but
3
was not limited to, the following terms and conditions:
4
(a) Intervenor would be able to continue her employment with the Fish Hopper
5
6 indefinitely as long as she carried out her duties in a proper and competent manner;

7

(b) Intervenor would not be denied fair treatment or be compelled to resign for other than

8
good cause;
9
(c) the Fish Hopper would not discriminate against Intervenor on the basis of sex or allow
10

11 her to be sexually harassed or retaliated against.

12

61. This total employment agreement was evidenced by oral representations to Intervenor by

13 the Fish Hopper’s agents and employees, and the parties’ entire course of conduct, including the
14
following:
15
(a) There is an established policy within the Fish Hopper known to Intervenor and relied
16
17 on by her, that employees such as Intervenor, who had performed services as good and faithful

18 employees, would be treated fairly, would not have employment decisions made about them

19 without good cause, and would not be subjected to discrimination or retaliation; and
20
(b) Intervenor’s employment history at the Fish Hopper was excellent during the three
21
and a half months that she worked there. She received no indication that her performance was
22
23 lacking and she was initially assigned to economically lucrative tables.;

24

62. As a result of the above representations, Intervenor came reasonably to expect and to

25
rely on the promise of job security and fair treatment. Such statements and acts of the Fish
26
Hopper communicated to Intervenor the idea that she had performed satisfactorily and that job
27

28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
15

1 opportunities would be available. Intervenor in good faith relied upon these representations and

2 believed them to be true.
3
63. Intervenor’s reliance on and belief in and acceptance in good faith of all the assurances,
4
promises
5
6 and representations as listed in paragraphs 59, led Intervenor throughout her employment with

7 Defendant Fish Hopper to reasonably believe that her employment was secure and that there
8
existed thereby a contract of continuous employment with the Fish Hopper. As independent
9
consideration for this contract of continuing employment, and as evidence of Intervenor’s
10
11 reliance thereon, in addition to performing her regular duties as an employee of defendant Fish

12 Hopper, Intervenor gave up and refrained from seeking other employment opportunities.

13

64. Intervenor undertook and continued employment and duly performed all conditions of

14
the agreement to be performed by her. Intervenor has at all times been ready, willing, and able
15
to perform and has offered to perform all conditions of this agreement to be performed by her.
16

17

65. Despite the representations made to Intervenor and the reliance she placed on them, the

18 Fish Hopper failed to carry out its responsibilities under, and breached the terms of, the

19 employment agreement by, among other things, the following conduct:
20
(a) By failing to provide Intervenor with a work environment free from harassment,
21
discrimination and retaliation;
22

23

(b) By denying Intervenor fair treatment, a promotion, and work opportunities

24 comparable to those of other employees; and
25
(c) By retaliating against and constructively discharging Intervenor when she
26
complained of unfair treatment.
27

28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
16

1

66. At all times material hereto, Intervenor performed her job in a satisfactory and

2 trustworthy manner.
3
67. The Fish Hopper breached the aforementioned total employment agreement by the
4
conduct set forth above without regard to or in compliance with the requirements of the aforesaid
5
6 agreement, and for reasons that were pretextual and untrue. Despite complaints to management

7 regarding the harassment by all defendants, it was never stopped. In fact, Intervenor’s

8
unwillingness to accept the harassment resulted in increased harassment and other retaliatory
9
behavior.
10

11

WHEREFORE, Intervenor requests relief as hereinafter provided.

12

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
13

14

68. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, 22 through 29, 31 through 40, 42 through

15 44, 48, 49, 51 through 53, 55, 57, 58 and 60 through 67 are realleged and incorporated herein by

16 reference. This cause of actions is pleaded against Defendant Fish Hopper.
17
69. The aforementioned employment agreement contained an implied covenant of good and
18
fair dealing by which the Fish Hopper promised to give full cooperation to Intervenor and her
19
20 performance under the employment agreement and to refrain from doing any act that would

21 prevent to impede Intervenor from performing all the conditions of the agreement to be

22 performed by her or any act that would prevent or impede Intervenor’s enjoyment of the fruits of
23
said agreement. Specifically, said covenant of good faith and fair dealing required defendants to
24
25 fairly, honestly, and reasonably perform the terms and conditions of said agreement.

26

70. Defendant Fish Hopper breached said implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by

27 denying Intervenor a work environment free from harassment, discriminations and retaliation.
28
Defendant Fish Hopper further breached said implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
17

1 denying Intervenor fair treatment, and compelling her resignations. Such actions were taken at a

2 time when Intervenor was fully capable of and was in fact performing her job in a fully
3
satisfactory manner. Such actions by Defendant Fish Hopper were not taken because of
4
unsatisfactory job performance by Intervenor; they were taken at least in part because of
5
6 Intervenor’s complaints of harassment and retaliation.

7

71. Intervenor is informed and believes that defendant Fish Hopper breached its contract

8
with Intervenor without conducting any reasonable investigation concerning its obligations under
9
said contract, without good or sufficient cause, for reasons extraneous to the contract, and for the
10

11 purpose of frustrating Intervenor’s enjoyment of the benefits of the contract.

12

WHEREFORE, Intervenor requests relief as hereinafter provide.

13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

14
WHEREFORE, Intervenors request relief as follows:
15
1. For special and economic damages, including back pay and front pay, for all Causes
16

17 of Action.

18

2. For general and noneconomic damages for all Causes of Action except the Ninth and

19 Tenth;
20
3. For punitive damages according to proof for all Causes of Action except the Eighth,
21
Ninth, and Tenth;
22

23

4. For prejudgment interest at the prevailing legal rate;

24

5. For injunctive relief including requiring defendants to adopt reasonable postings and

25
changes in personnel policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment and retaliations,
26
requiring training about sexual harassment for all employees, for a permanent injunction
27
28 enjoining defendants, their agents, successors, employees, and those acting in concert with them

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
18

1 from engaging in each unlawful practice, policy, usage, and custom set forth hereinabove, and

2 for such other injunctive relief as the Court may deem proper;
3
6. For costs of the suit, including reasonable attorney frees; and
4
7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
5

6

CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

7

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that as of this date, other than the

8 named parties, there is no such interest to report.
9

10
Date: June 17, 2003
11
12
13

LAW OFFICES OF CHOW & LOSINSKI
By:_________________________________________ Matthew T. Losinski, Esq. Attorneys for Intervenor

14

15

JURY DEMANDS

16

Intervenor demands trial by jury in this action.

17 Date: June 17, 2003
18 19 20

LAW OFFICES OF CHOW & LOSINSKI
By:_________________________________________ Matthew T. Losinski, Esq. Attorneys for Intervenor

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
19

 </s> Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 41 Filed 02/07/2004 Page 1 of 13

1 Matthew T. Losinski, Esq. (CA Bar No. 177323) Dorothy K. Chow, Esq. (CA Bar No. 208364)
2 LAW OFFICES OF CHOW & LOSINSKI 3 303 W. Joaquin Avenue, Suite 200
San Leandro, California 94577-3666 4 Telephone No.: (510) 895-9099
Facsimile No.: (510) 895-9119
5
Attorneys for Intervenor: MASUMEH ZANGANEH
6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

13 COMMISSION,
14

Plaintiff,

) ) C-03-01522 (RMW) HRL ) )

MASUMEH ZANGANEH,
15

) ) AMENDED COMPLAINT IN

16 17

Plaintiff/Intervenor, ) INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND

) )

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

v.

)

18
ROWTOWN, INC. D/B/A 19 THE FISH HOPPER RESTAURANT,

) JURY TRIAL DEMAND ) ) )

20

) )

)

21 22

Defendant.

) )

23 Intervenor Masumeh Zanganeh complains and alleges as follows:

24

25

PARTIES

26

1. At all material times, Intervenor Masumeh Zanganeh was a resident of the State of

27 California. At all material times, Intervenor Masumeh Zanganeh worked for Rowtown, Inc.

28

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
1

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 41 Filed 02/07/2004 Page 2 of 13

1 d/b/a The Fish Hopper Restaurant (hereafter “Defendant Fish Hopper”) in the State of California.

2

2. Intervenor Masumeh Zanganeh is informed and believes that defendant Rowtown, Inc.

3
d/b/a The Fish Hopper Restaurant is a California corporation with its principal place of business
4

in the State of California.
5

6

JURISDICTION AND VENUE AS TO FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

7
3. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343
8
and 1345.
9
4. The unlawful employment practices alleged herein were committed in Monterey County,
10
within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
11

12

JURISDICTION AND VENUE AS TO REMAINING

CAUSES OF ACTION OTHER THAN FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
13

14

5. This is an action for sexual harassment based on state law pursuant to California

15 Government Code Section 12940 et seq., and the court should exercise jurisdiction over this

16 action pursuant to section 1367 of Title 28 of the United States Code, for the following reasons:

17 (1) the action for the Title VII federal claim which is alleged in the First Cause of Action of this

18 Complaint arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000 et seq.

19 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981(a), and the jurisdiction of the

20 action is conferred upon the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and

21 1345; (2) as more clearly appears below, the remaining causes of action based on California

22 Government Code Section 12940 et seq., and California State Law are so related to the claim in

23 the action alleged in the First Cause of Action that all Causes of Action form part of the same

24 case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution; (3) the actions for sexual

25 harassment based on state law pursuant to California Government Code Section 12940 et seq.,

26 which are based on California State Law neither raise a novel or complex issue of state law, nor

27 substantially predominate over the federal claim which is alleged in the First Cause of Action of

28 this Complaint; and (4) there are no other compelling reasons for the court to decline jurisdiction

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
2

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 41 Filed 02/07/2004 Page 3 of 13

1 over the Second through Fourth (inclusive) causes of action for sexual harassment based on state 2 law pursuant to California Government Code Section 12940 et seq. and California State Law.

3

6. The unlawful employment practices alleged herein were committed in Monterey

4 County, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of

5 California.

6
INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
7
7. This action is appropriate for assignment to the San Jose division because the unlawful
8
employment practices alleged were committed in Monterey County, within the jurisdiction of the
9
United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
10

11

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

12

8. Prior to filing of this action, Ms. Zanganeh filed a charge with the Equal Employment

13 Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Intervenor in this action.

14

9. Ms. Zanganeh concurrently filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

15 (EEOC) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) a charge of

16 discrimination in a timely manner and the DFEH issued a right-to-sue letter in conjunction with

17 a decision to defer its investigation of the charge to the EEOC.

18

10. On April 10, 2003, EEOC filed this lawsuit on behalf of all female employees in

19 Defendant’s restaurant, including Ms. Zanganeh. All conditions precedent to the institution of

20 this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

21

11. Ms. Zanganeh hereby files a Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff under Rule 24(a)(1) of

22 Fed. R. Civ. P. because, as an “aggrieved person”, she has an unconditional right to intervene in

23 a civil action brought by the EEOC as provided in 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f)(1).

24

25

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

26

12. On or about September 28, 1997, Intervenor Masumeh Zanganeh began employment at

27
The Fish Hopper Restaurant as an AM server and hostess.
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
3

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 41 Filed 02/07/2004 Page 4 of 13

1

13. From the onset of employment, Dennis Bybee, the executive chef of Defendant Fish

2 Hopper, Jimmy Ugaz, another server at Defendant Fish Hopper, Chris Shake, owner of
3
Defendant Fish Hopper, and/or the restaurant cooks and bussers, began subjecting Intervenor
4
Masumeh Zanganeh to a pattern of offensive and unwanted sexual behavior at work, including,
5
6 but not limited to:

7

A. Walking up behind Intervenor and giving her non-consensual shoulder

8
massages;
9
B. Walking up and putting their arms around her;
10

11

C. Touching Intervenor on her back and shoulders;

12

D. Kissing her forehead;

13

E. Giving Intervenor nonconsensual hugs;

14
F. Making statements about Intervonor’s body parts;
15
G. Continually staring at Intervenor’s buttocks;
16

17

H. Slapping Intervenor on her buttocks;

18

I. Grabbing Intervenor’s breasts;

19

J. Touching Intervenor by purposely bumping into her and brushing up against

20
her;
21

K. Whistling at Intervenor when she walked back to the kitchen;
22

23

L. Asking inappropriate questions regarding Intervenor’s sex life such as, “How

24

many times a day do you have sex?”, “How old were you the first time you

25
had sex?”, “Do you moan or do you scream in bed?” and “Do you like it soft
26
or hard?”;
27

28

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
4

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 41 Filed 02/07/2004 Page 5 of 13

1

M. Making lewd sexual statements to Intervenor such as, “If you were my

2

girlfriend, I would do you five (5) times a day.”; and

3
N. When Intervenor would ask for anything extra for her tickets, the cooks would
4

make statements such as, “What am I going to get for it?”.
5

6 14. The above conduct occurred almost every time Intervenor was scheduled to work

7 between the months of September 1997 and January 1998. Dennis Bybee and Jimmy Ugaz
8
gradually increased the frequency and the explicitness of the above listed sexual comments and
9
actions. The kitchen crew even stated unanimously that if they all had it their way again, they
10
11 would all choose to lose their virginity to Intervenor.

12

15. Since the first week Intervenor was employed, Intervenor was sexually harassed.

13 Intervenor brought these complaints to the attention of, among others, Jeanne David, a manager
14
of Defendant Fish Hopper. Each time Intervenor complained, she was assured by management
15
that “it” would be taken care of. However, the harassment never ceased and continued to
16
17 worsen. Despite management’s assurances, Defendant Fish Hopper did nothing to stop the

18 harassment. Jeanne David later stated to Intervenor that she was getting all the attention because

19 she was pretty. Defendant Fish Hopper did nothing to rectify the problems of which Intervenor
20
complained nor did it prevent future problems from reoccurring. Instead, management began to
21
retaliate against Intervenor for complaining by “writing her up” for things she had done weeks
22
23 prior and assigning Intervenor to economically less lucrative tables. Management specifically

24 targeted Intervenor for “write-ups” and failed to “write-up” others similarly situated. Intervenor
25
never encouraged the sexual behavior nor indicated in any way that it was welcome. When
26
Intervenor told Arlene Shake, another manager of Defendant Fish Hopper, that she did not feel
27
28 that she was being treated right, Arlene Shake stated to Intervenor, “it’s all up to you”.

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
5

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 41 Filed 02/07/2004 Page 6 of 13

1

16. On or about January 13, 1998, Intervenor was working the soup station when Jimmy

2 Ugaz came up from behind her and grabbed her breasts and kissed her cheek. Intervenor was so
3
startled that she spilled onto her hand the cup of soup she was holding. Intervenor then screamed
4
for Jimmy Ugaz to get off her. Jimmy Ugaz then said to Intervenor “don’t get so emotional.”
5
6 Intervenor looked around and saw that the entire kitchen crew was staring at her because she was

7 screaming. Dennis Bybee was present, saw the entire incident and did nothing. Intervenor was
8
left embarrassed, violated, angry and humiliated.
9
17. Intervenor tried to fight back her tears but she could not. She had been violated in front
10
11 of the entire kitchen staff, Dennis Bybee, as well as others seated nearby. Intervenor ran to

12 inform Jeanne David, a manager of Defendant Fish Hopper, of how Jimmy Ugaz grabbed her

13 breasts. Instead of immediately addressing the egregious conduct of Jimmy Ugaz and
14
investigating the matter by questioning those who witnessed the event, Jeanne David dismissed
15
the situation as “just another incident” and instructed Intervenor to resume working. It was not
16
17 until two hours later that Intervenor was able to fully describe to management the battery that

18 had taken place. Jeanne David and Defendant Fish Hopper failed to fully investigate the severity

19 and continuous nature of this matter throughout the term of Intervenor’s employment with the
20
Fish Hopper, failed to acknowledge the severe psychological reaction to the assaults and
21
batteries Intervenor had experienced, failed to adequately discipline or warn Dennis Bybee,
22
23 Jimmy Ugaz and the other harassers about their behavior, and indicated in various ways that

24 Intervenor was responsible for the assaults and batteries inflicted upon her and the other sexual
25
behavior. In addition to the above-mentioned incidents, Intervenor was subjected daily to verbal
26
harassment and a hostile work environment.
27

28

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
6

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 41 Filed 02/07/2004 Page 7 of 13

1

18. After reporting the incidents of sexual harassment, Intervenor eventually began to be

2 the subject of retaliation by Defendant Fish Hopper and its agents in the form of being
3
unnecessarily “written-up”, reassigned to the back tables of the restaurant where the tips were
4
not nearly as lucrative and being subjected to hostility by management. Intervenor was forced to
5
6 quit her employment on or about January 19, 1998 because of Defendant Fish Hopper’s failure to

7 take immediate or appropriate corrective action in response to her numerous complaints of

8
harassment and her complaints of Defendant Fish Hoppers’ supervisors’ retaliation in being
9
written-up unfairly and reassigned to economically less lucrative tables.
10

11

19. Several Fish Hopper employees, who were not involved in the incident, were told by

12 Jeanne David, manager, about the sexual assaults and batteries inflicted upon Intervenor, and that

13 Intervenor had overreacted. These communications resulted in further anguish and emotional
14
distress to Intervenor.
15
20. On or about December 31, 1997, Intervenor went to the back of the kitchen. Chris
16
17 Shake, owner of Defendant Fish Hopper, was in the back of the kitchen and Intervenor stopped

18 to inquire as to how business was faring. When he responded that business was “great”,

19 Intervenor attempted to give Chris Shake a “high-five”. Instead of doing the same, Chris Shake
20
wrapped his arms around Intervenor pressing her breasts against his chest. Intervenor pulled
21
away from Chris Shake and pushed him off her.
22

23

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

24

(Sex Discrimination/Sexual Harassment)

25

(Title VII)

26

21. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20 and 45 are realleged and incorporated herein

27 by reference. This cause of action is pleaded against defendant.
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
7

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 41 Filed 02/07/2004 Page 8 of 13

1

22. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000

2 et seq. and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981(a) to correct unlawful

3 employment practices on the basis of sex, retaliation and constructive discharge and to provide

4 appropriate relief to Ms. Masumeh Zanganeh (“Intervenor”). As alleged below, Defendant

5 unlawfully subjected Intervenor to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment.

6 Intervenor also alleges that Defendant subjected her to retaliation and constructive discharge

7 because she engaged in a protected activity.

8

23. Intervenor was employed as a server and hostess in Defendant’s restaurant located in the

9 City of Monterey, California.

10

24. During her employment, Intervenor had been subjected to sexual harassment from her co-

11 workers, supervisors and managers in the form of statements and inappropriate touching.

12

25. Intervenor complained repeatedly to the managers about the conduct of the co-workers,

13 supervisors and managers; however Defendant Fish Hopper took no corrective action and

14 ignored Intervenor’s complaints.

15

26. Further, Defendant Fish Hopper and its Managers subjected Intervenor to adverse

16 employment actions in retaliation for her opposition to and rejection of the sexual harassment.

17

27. Because Intervenor could no longer tolerate the discriminatory conduct toward her, she

18 was forced to terminate her employment with Defendant Fish Hopper.

19

28. The effect of Defendant Fish Hopper’s practices complained of above has deprived

20 Intervenor of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected her employment

21 status because of her sex and on account of retaliation and constructive discharge.

22

29. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional and were done

23 with malice and/or reckless disregard to the federally protected rights of Intervenor.

24

30. Said conduct exceeded the inherent risks of employment and was not the sort of conduct

25 normally expected to occur in the workplace.

26 /// ///
27 /// 28 ///

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
8

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 41 Filed 02/07/2004 Page 9 of 13

1

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Sex Discrimination/Sexual Harassment)

2

(Cal. Government Code §12940)

3
31. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, 22 through 30, and 45 are realleged and
4

incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pleaded against defendant.
5

6

32. Defendant Fish Hopper was at all material times an employer within the meaning of

7 California Government Code §12926(d) and, as such, barred from discrimination or retaliating in
8
employment decisions on the basis of sex as set forth in California Government code §12940.
9
33. Intervenor was at all material times an employee covered by California Government
10
11 Code §12940 prohibiting discrimination or retaliation in employment on the basis of sex.

12

34. Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against female

13 employees, including Intervenor, on the basis of sex in violation of California Government Code
14
§12940 by engaging in a course of conduct that included subjecting Intervenor to sexual
15
harassment and hostility because of her sex. This behavior continued until Intervenor was
16
17 constructively terminated.

18

35. Furthermore, employees, supervisors and managers of Defendant Fish Hopper aided

19 and abetted Defendant Fish Hopper in engaging in illegal discrimination on the basis of sex
20
against female employees, including subjecting Intervenor to sexual harassment and hostility
21
because of her sex, in violation of California Government Code §12940 (g).
22

23

36. Intervenor concurrently filed a timely charge of sex discrimination and retaliation with

24 the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing and the United States Equal
25
Employment Opportunity Commission and has received a right-to-sue letter. Thus, she has
26
exhausted her administrative remedies.
27
28 ///

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
9

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 41 Filed 02/07/2004 Page 10 of 13

1

37. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct, Intervenor has suffered, and continues to

2 suffer, substantial losses incurred in seeking and performing substitute employment and in
3
earnings, and other employment benefits she would have received had defendant not taken such
4
adverse employment actions against her.
5

6

38. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct, Intervenor has suffered, and continues to

7 suffer, embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress, all to her damage in an

8
amount according to proof.

9

39.

Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and

10

11 oppressively, in bad faith, with the wrongful intention of injuring Intervenor, from an improper

12 and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Intervenor’s rights.

13 Intervenor, thus, is entitled to recover punitive damages from defendant in an amount according
14
to proof.
15
40. As a result of defendant’s discriminatory acts as alleged herein, Intervenor has no plain,
16
17 adequate, or complete remedy at law, and defendant continues to engage in said wrongful

18 practices. Therefore, Intervenor requests:

19

(a) That she be made whole and afforded all benefits attendant thereto that would have

20
been afforded Intervenor but for said discrimination; and
21

(b) that defendant, their agents, successors, employees, and those acting in concert with
22

23

them be enjoined permanently from engaging in each of the unlawful practices,

24
25
26
/// 27 /// 28 ///

policies, usages and customs set forth herein, and that they be required to develop posting policies, grievance procedures, and training regarding sexual harassment.

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
10

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 41 Filed 02/07/2004 Page 11 of 13

1 41. As a result of defendants’ discriminatory acts as alleged herein, Intervenor is entitled to

2 reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit as provided by California Government Code §12965
3
(b).
4
WHEREFORE, Intervenor requests relief as hereinafter provided.
5

6

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

7

(Failure to Maintain Environment Free from Harassment)

8

(California Government Code §12940 (i))

9

42. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, 22 through 30, 32 through 41, are realleged

10 and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pleaded against Defendant Fish
11
Hopper.
12
43. Defendant failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment
13
14 against Intervenor from occurring, and to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to

15 remedy the harassment, in violation of California Government Code §12940 (i), by engaging in

16 the course of conduct set forth in paragraphs 12 through 20, among other things.
17
44. Specifically, Defendant Fish Hopper failed to take adequate disciplinary action against
18
their employees, supervisors and/or managers, such as issuing a formal warning, providing
19
20 counseling, or imposing probation, suspension, or termination upon the above named

21 transgressors.

22

45. Intervenor is informed and believes that defendant Fish Hopper never had a written

23
policy about sexual harassment, never conducted any sexual harassment training, never gave
24

25 Intervenor information regarding sexual harassment and never posted any sexual harassment

26 policies for its employees, supervisors or managers in a conspicuous place as required by law

27 during her term of employment.
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
11

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 41 Filed 02/07/2004 Page 12 of 13

1

WHEREFORE, Intervenor requests relief as hereinafter provided.

2

3

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Retaliation–California Government Code §12940 (f))

4

46. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, 22 through 30, 32 through 41 and 43
5

6 through 45 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. This cause of action is pleaded

7 against defendant Fish Hopper.
8
47. Defendant retaliated against Intervenor in violation of Government Code §12940(f), by
9
engaging in a course of retaliatory conduct, including, among other things, the conduct set forth
10
11 in paragraphs 12 through 20 above, when she complained about sexual harassment and hostility

12 and conduct based on sex discrimination. This retaliation continued until Intervenor’s

13 constructive discharge which was carried out by supervisors and managers of Defendant Fish
14
Hopper, as well as, employees acting within the course and scope of their employment.
15
WHEREFORE, Intervenor requests relief as hereinafter provided.
16

17
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
18
WHEREFORE, Intervenors request relief as follows:
19

20

1. For special and economic damages, including back pay and front pay, for all Causes

21 of Action.

22

2. For general and noneconomic damages for all Causes of Action;

23
3. For punitive damages according to proof for all Causes of Action;
24

25

4. For prejudgment interest at the prevailing legal rate;

26

5. For injunctive relief including requiring defendants to adopt reasonable postings and

27 changes in personnel policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment and retaliations,
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
12

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 41 Filed 02/07/2004 Page 13 of 13

1 requiring training about sexual harassment for all employees, for a permanent injunction

2 enjoining defendants, their agents, successors, employees, and those acting in concert with them
3
from engaging in each unlawful practice, policy, usage, and custom set forth hereinabove, and
4
for such other injunctive relief as the Court may deem proper;
5

6

6. For costs of the suit, including reasonable attorney fees; and

7

7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

8

9

CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

10

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that as of this date, other than the

11 named parties, there is no such interest to report.
12

13 Date: February 5, 2004

LAW OFFICES OF CHOW & LOSINSKI

14

By:_________________________________________

15

Matthew T. Losinski, Esq.

Attorney for Intervenor

16

17

By:_________________________________________

18

Dorothy K. Chow, Esq.

Attorney for Intervenor

19

20

JURY DEMANDS

21

Intervenor demands trial by jury in this action.

22
Date: February 5, 2004
23
24
25

LAW OFFICES OF CHOW & LOSINSKI
By:_________________________________________ Matthew T. Losinski, Esq. Attorney for Intervenor

26
By:_________________________________________

27

Dorothy K. Chow, Esq.

Attorney for Intervenor
28

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF
13

 </s> Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 65 Filed 08/31/2004 Page 1 of 5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

E-Filed: 8/31/04

4

5

6

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

11 COMMISSION,

Case No. C03-01522 RMW (HRL)

12

Plaintiff,

13 MASUMEH ZANGANEH,

ORDER ON INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

14

Plaintiff/Intervenor,

15

v.

16 ROWTOWN, INC. D/B/A THE FISH HOPPER
RESTAURANT AND DOES 1-50 17
Defendants.
18 /
19

20

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this action against

22 defendant Rowtown, Inc. on April 10, 2004, alleging that defendant violated of Title VII of the Civil

23 Rights Acts by subjecting female employees to sexual harassment. Judge Whyte granted Masumeh

24 Zanganeh's (intervenor's) motion to intervene in part, allowing her to assert her sexual harassment

25 claims under Title VII and the California Fair Employment & Housing Act. Intervenor’s complaint

26 included an emotional distress claim as well as a claim for front and back pay.

27

At intervenor’s January 14, 2004 deposition, she identified several doctors and a

28 therapist with whom she had spoken regarding her emotional distress. On July 6, 2004, defendant

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 65 Filed 08/31/2004 Page 2 of 5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 subpoenaed intervenor's doctors and therapist, seeking all medical and psychological records relating

2 to intervenor. Defendant also subpoenaed intervenor’s employers for her employment records.

3 Intervenor's counsel objected to the subpoenas on July 12, 2004, alleging that they were overbroad

4 and impinged on private and privileged information. After the parties were unable to resolve the

5 dispute, intervenor filed this motion for a protective order on July 27, 2004, over a week after the due

6 date on the subpoena, but before the documents had been produced. Basically, she seeks to limit the

7 scope of the subpoenas. EEOC filed a statement of non-opposition to intervenor’s motion.

8 Defendant opposes the motion.

9

ANALYSIS

10 I. Whether Intervenor's Motion is Untimely

11

Upon “timely motion,” the court may modify a subpoena if it “requires disclosure of privileged

12 or other protected material.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A). Protective orders are appropriate to limit

13 or modify the scope of a subpoena. In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum

14 Products Antitrust Litigation, 669 F.2d 620, 621 (10th Cir. 1982). In considering the timeliness of

15 a motion for a protective order, courts should “look to all of the circumstances in determining whether

16 the motion is timely.” 8 WRIGHT, MILLER, AND MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §

17 2035 (2d ed. 2004).

18

Here, there appears to be good reason for intervenor’s delay in bringing the motion.

19 Intervenor’s counsel contacted defense counsel on July 12 and July 16 to inform them of their

20 objections to the subpoenas, and attempt to resolve the issue. It was only after the parties were

21 unable to resolve the matter that intervenor brought the motion for a protective order. Given that the

22 slight delay in bringing the motion was due to intervenor’s attempt to meet and confer, as required by

23 Civ. L. R. 37-1, intervenor’s motion is timely.

24 II. Whether Intervenor has Demonstrated Good Cause to Warrant a Protective Order

25

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) a party may move the court for an order “to protect a party

26 or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Parties may

27 also request modifications to existing protective orders. Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1039

28 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts retain great flexibility in fashioning protective orders, and may enter a

2

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 65 Filed 08/31/2004 Page 3 of 5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 protective order based upon “the necessities of a particular case.” United States v. Columbia

2 Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1982). The party seeking the protective

3 order bears the burden of showing good cause, demonstrating that “specific prejudice or harm will

4 result if no protective order is granted.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,

5 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). “[B]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or

6 articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Id. at 1130 (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett

7 Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986)).

8

A. Subpoena Dr. Richards

9

Intervenor saw Dr. Richards for prenatal care. “Pure” medical records do not constitute

10 relevant, discoverable information where a party makes no claim for physical injury in conjunction with

11 a claim for emotional distress. See Fitzgerald v. Cassil, 216 F.R.D. 632, 634 (N.D. Cal 2003).

12 Here, although intervenor has not stated a claim for physical injury with her emotional distress claim,

13 the subpoena requests all of intervenor's records. Intervenor does state that she asked Dr. Richards to

14 prescribe medication for depression, but she was not prescribed any and was not otherwise treated by

15 Dr. Richards for her emotional distress. Mot. at 6:4-7. See also Doe v. City of Chula Vista, 196

16 F.R.D. 562, 570 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (“[D]efendants have no need to access records relating to the birth

17 of Doe’s child.”).

18

B. Subpoenas to Drs. Burnham and Hopkins

19

The subpoenas to Drs. Burnham and Hopkins, however, are not overbroad, as intervenor

20 testified that she only saw those doctors concerning the alleged emotional distress she suffered as a

21 result of defendant's conduct. Ex. A to Decl. of C. Long at 40-41, 48-50.

22

C. Subpoena to Connie Rodgers, MFT

23

Where a party makes a claim for emotional distress, psychological records are relevant in

24 determining the extent of the distress as well as other possible stressors. See Fitzgerald, 216 F.R.D.

25 at 634. The subpoena to Rodgers is appropriate, as intervenor said she began seeing her after the

26 alleged discrimination occurred, solely for distress related to the claimed harassment. Ex. A to Decl.

27 of C. Long at 43-44. As such, the records are relevant to her claims.

28 //

3

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 65 Filed 08/31/2004 Page 4 of 5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

D. Subpoena of Employment Records

2

The court finds that Intervenor has not demonstrated good cause for a protective order limiting

3 the subpoenas of her employment records to wage information only. “[N]either personnel records nor

4 employment agreements are, without more, legitimate categories of confidential information,”

5 necessitating a protective order. Pierson v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 205 F.R.D. 646, 647

6 (S.D. Ind. 2002). Intervenor has provided no specific facts that would demonstrate good cause for a

7 protective order. See id. (noting that the parties’ conclusory allegations failed to demonstrate good

8 cause necessary for a protective order).

9

ORDER

10

Based on the forgoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

11

1) The subpoena for Dr. Richard's records is quashed.

12

2) The motion is denied as to the subpoenas to Dr. Burnham, Dr. Hopkins, and Connie

13 Rodgers, M.F.T.

14

3) The motion is denied as to the subpoenas to Initiative Media Worldwide, Inc., Manpower

15 Inc., and Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar.

16

4) Intervenor may designate the above-produced material as confidential pursuant to the

17 existing protective order in this case.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: 8/31/04 20

/s/ Howard R. Lloyd HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 65 Filed 08/31/2004 Page 5 of 5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

2 Dorothy Karen Chow dorchow@hotmail.com, dorchow@hotmail.com

3 Sanya P. Hill sanya.hill@eeoc.gov

4 Eileen P. Kennedy epk@berliner.com

5 Christine H. Long christine.long@berliner.com, cathy.sandifer@berliner.com

6 Matthew T. Losinski dorchow@hotmail.com,

7 Jonathan T. Peck JPeck@eeoc.gov

8 Lucila G. Rosas Lucila.Rosas@eeoc.gov

9 William Robert Tamayo william.tamayo@eeoc.gov

10 * Counselare responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel who have not registered under the Court's ECF system.
11

12 Dated: 8/31/04

13

/s/ KWN

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

 </s> Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 74 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 1 of 11

1 WILLIMI R. TAl'>lAYO _ #084965 (CA)
JONATHANT. PECK - #1230] (VA) 2 LIJIo'DA S. ORDONIO-DlXON . #178]40 (CA)
SANYA HILL MAXION -11l7]9(WA) 3 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
San Francisco District Office 4 350 The Emhlrcldero, Suite 500
Sin Frl ncbco, CA 94105-1260 5 Telephone No. (41S) 625-5654
Facsimile No. (41S) 62S-5657
6 Altorueys for Plaintiff EEOC
7

8

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN OISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

*E-FILED - 11/21/05*

12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY 13 COMMISSION,

) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO. C-Ol-G1522- RMW (HRL)

)

14

Plaintiff,

) )

CONSENT DECREE

)
15 ltlASUMEH ZANGANEII, lodi,idull, )

16

luttn,enu,

17

v.

)
.... ) ) )
)

18 ROWTOWN, INC. DfBlA THE FISH
HOPPER RESTAURANT, 19
Defendlnt.

)
!

20

21

22 l.
23

INTRODUCfION On April 10, 2003, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opponunity Commission (",EEOC" or

24 "Commi:s.sion"} filed this action pursuant to Tille VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title Vir,),

25 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The EEOC alleged that Defendant Ru...1own tnc. dIbIa

26 The Fish Hopper Restaurant {"Defendant''}discriminatedagainst Charging PartyMasumeh Zanganc:h

27 and other similarly situated fcmaleemployees. Specifically, the EEOC Illeged that the women were

28 subje<:ted to a sexually hostile work environment and that Ms. Zanganeh was retaliated against for

Coo ..., 1>« ... C_'J·ol~n_ UtW ( IIRl )

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 74 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 2 of 11

1 her complaints about the harassment. The EEOC further alleges that Ms. Zanganeh was

2 constructively discharged due 10 retaliation and Defendanl"s failure 10 rake <;orrec::tive a:;tion in

3 response 10 her comp\.aint.

4

The Fish Ho~r denies the EEOC's and Ms. Zanganeh's allegations. The Fish Hopper

5 became aware of virtually all of Ms. Zanganeh's complaints of sexual harassment after she

6 voluntarily resigned and filed a Charge ofDiscriminatioo with the EEOC. During her tenure, The

7 Fish Hopper was aware of only one of her complainlll of sexual harassment, pe~ed by a 8 coworker, and The Fish Hopper terminated the cmplo}ment of that coworker. The Fish Hopper

9 denies that Ms. Zanganeh ever complained to any mem!J.er of management about any of the other

10 a!iegations of sexual harassment made in this action. Regarding the eomplainlll oftbe similarly 11 situated females, The Fish Hopper was aware of only one compbint by one claimant and took

12 appropriate correclive action immediatelyafter becoming awareofthe complaint. The Fish Hopper

13 denies that any of the remaining claimants reported the alleged sexual harusment w thaI il bad

14 reason to know of the alleged harassment and claims that it is therefore not liable for the alleged

15 harassmenL

"17 u.

JIOON-AD;\DSSION OF LlABlLITY

18

This consent decree is not an adjudication or finding on the merits of this case and shall oot

19 be construed as an admission oCa violation of Title vn by Defendant.

20

The Court has reviewed the terms nflhis Cooseol Decree in ligbl ofthe pleadings, the =nrd

21 herein, and !he applicable law, and DOW approves the Consenl Dccree in its entirety.

22

Therefwe, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:

23
24 m.

GElIoTRAL PROVISIONS

25

I. This Court bas jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action.

26

2. This Consent Decree constitutes a full resolution of the EEOC's complaint and the

"Zl Intervener's Amended Complaint in Intervention in Ci\il Action C-03-01S22- RMW (HRL).

28

3. This Consent DecKe shall become effective upon its mtryby the Court..

C(l!lSt~1 Deer•• C-.l-GUn_ RMW (HRLj

P.,. -2-

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 74 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 3 of 11

1

4. This Consent 0ccTee is final.nd binding upon the Parties, their $Uttes5Ol'!i and assigns.

2

,. The EEOC and ~fendant shall bear their OWll oosts and l!!Orner fees.

3

,4 IV. GENERAL INJ UNCTIVE RELIEF I. Sexual Hanssll1ent

6

Defeodanl, its officers, Igenu. managemall (including aU llUJlaViSOl'y cmplo)'tts,

7 SIICCenors and assigns, Ind III those in activc concen or participation with them, or any of them,

8 hereby IgrCe not to: (I) o:ug-ae in orbe I party to any action, policy or practice thaI is inleOOed to

9 or is known to them to have the effect of $eXually harassing Or intimid.ltiJla any employee 011 the

10 buis of sex ; or (c) en:ale, facilitate o r permit the existence nf discrimination on the basis of sex.

11

2.

Retaliation

12

Defendant, illl omeen, agents, management (including supervisory cmplo)'I:CS), SllCCesson

13 or assigns, and all those in active eOllnen or participation with them, agree not to engage in,

14 implement or permit any action, policy or plllcticewith the pwpose ofretaliatins ssainst anyClll'Talt

15 or former employee of~fendant because he or she complained about sexual barassmenl, filed a

16 charge of discrimination alleginS any JUCh practi<:e; testified or participated. in any manner in any

17 investigation (inc ludiDa, without limiutioo, any internal investiptioo UIldoertakm by ~fendant),

18 proceedi.ngor bearing in COMeCtion with this ease, and/or rel.oDng to any claim ofsexual barusrnmt

19 or reu.Ji.ation, or; was identified as a possible wimess in this action.

20

21 V. SPEcmc INJU1'\'CTIVE RELIEF

22

In order toefTo:;tuatethe objeetivuembodied in thisConseD.t DecMe, wimin thirly(JO)days

23 after the CDtry of this COIIlIfiI Decree, Defendant shall insure that its policies, procedure and

24 pr.ctioes include the foUowina:

2S

I. Policies

26

(i) the policy wi include an employ«'s right to complaint n:ganiing sexual harassment and

Xl maliation;

28

(ii) the policy will provide specific contact information, with an ~800· phone D\IJt\ber, fur

Co..o., Door«
c·n ·11! ! l· R1'IW (HRL)

P.~ .J.

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 74 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 4 of 11

1 compIailllS ofdiscriminatiOil or harassment as Defendant bas done in the past;

2

(iii) the policy will provide • prompt in"e~tiptioo .fter • complaint is made, and for

3 respooding 10 the request or complaint;

4

(iv) the policy "'ill requi~ that promptly upon the condllSion of i15 investigllion of.

5 complaint, Defendant "'ill communicate to the eruplo)'t'e the company's decision on the results of

6 the invt:itigation and the remedial actions taken or proposed ifany.

7

(v) the policy will include. definition ofretaliation and!troog non-retaliation language with

8 examples.

9

2. Polic,' Dinemh" tloa :

10

(I) beginning within 60 days of the enttyofthis decree, Ibe policy, as di5CUS5Cd !Ibo" e, will

11 be hand -ddivered 10 elCh and evay nnplo~ ofIXfendanl; and

12

(ii) the poliq will be posted on.ll companybulletin boanis for the duration of lbe decree.

13

J. Supervisor AttOuntl blUty Policy:

14

(i) Defendant agrees that it shall impose substantial discipline - up 10 and including

15 termination, suspension without pay or demotion - upon any supervisor or other manager, woo

16 engages in sexuaillarassment or Mali.1ion or, ",'110 pennil any such conduct 10 occur in his Or her

17 'NOfk au or among emplo~ WKIer hls or her supervision.

18

(ii) Supervis<n and !JUNgtn abo shall be xcountable for forwanling complaints ofsexu.al

19 bll'llSSmenl and/or retaliation 10 the individuals charged with handling such compl.linu pursumtlo

20 DefeDdant's existing policy.

21

(iii) Defendanllgrees thaI il will advise all current and new managers and supervisors oftheir

22 dUlies under these policies;

23

(iv) DefendantlgretS thaI il will revise its supervisor ~ew pro<:ess, as necessary, 10 ensure

24 !hilI appropriate communication of IDti~tion policies and appropriale handling of sexual

25 barassment complaints are included U III element of the reviews.

26

4.

T7

Defendanl shall insure its complainl procedwe designed 10 encounge employees to come

28 forward with complaints of sexual harassment andIor retaliation.

Co••••( D......
C4J4 L!U_ RMW (HRL)

P••e -4.

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 74 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 5 of 11

1

All pan of the policy, Defendanl shall provide its employees with convenienl, confidential

2 and reliable mechanisms for reponing incidenl$ ofsexu.tlltarassmenl and retalialion. Defendml

3 shall designale each manager and supcrvi$OT as a contact person with responsibility for responding

4 to and/or turning cornplainlS o~= to Hwnan Resources or to a third party responsible for

5 in\·estigating such CO\IlpwnlS ..

6

The complaint procedure shall provide that: (a) complainlS ofdiscrimination or harassment

7 andlor retaliation will be accepted by Defendant both in writing and orally; (b) the Company will

8 promptlycommence an investigation after a complaint i, made or recei\·ed, and for remedial EDon

9 if any 10 be taken upon conclusion of an investigation; and (c) promptly upon the conclusion of the

10 investigation of a complaint, Defendant will communicate to the cmp\o~ the results of the

11 investigation, including what remed.ialactions ifany have been taken, or are planned.

12

5_ Training Program

13

Defendant will presentlo aU ofils C\lJRnl employees, including management employees and

14 supervisors, at least two boursofmandatol)'equal employmetllopportunitytraining, once everyyear

15 for ~ duration of this Consent Decree. The first training shall be beld 011 or before July I, 2006 in

16 recognitiOIl of the fact that ruch tntining has already been conducled for 2005. The cost of the

17 training shall be borne by Defendant

18

The training described in the proeeding pantgntph shall be in-P=On or inleracti ~·e tra.ining.

19 accomp.an.ied by materials prepared byexperienced educators and/or in\·estigata"5, and shall educate

20 the employees about the problems of discrimination in the wolkplace. The purpose of the training

21 will be 10 give panicipants a thorough understanding of discrimination and hanwment issues,

22 including but not limiled to theories of liability under Title VII, sources of legal protection for

23 victims of discrimination and harassment, and the employer 's obligatioll to take preventive,

24 investigative, and remedial action with respect to discriminatiOll andltarassmellt complaints, and to

25 review company policies (including discipline policies) and practices related 10 discrimination,

26 harassment and retaHatioll_ The training will further inform each participant that he or she is

Xl responsible fur knowill8 and complying with the contents of D:fendanl', equal em ploymellt

28 cppommity policy.

Co...!>! 0«...
C·U_II SII _ RM W (HRL)

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 74 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 6 of 11

1

Defendant shall provide 10 the EEOC len (I 0) days in advance of the each training' copy of

2 the course syllabus lOr the training.

3

All persons attending each mandatory equal emplo)1lWnt opportunity Imining shill sign an

4 ackDowledpnentof his or her attendance _ the trl.ining.1M dale Iha"eol, and hi$ or herposition ~h

5 the company. All panicip.mts shall ,Iso be given • quc:stiolWlire through which they will be asked.

6 tocritiquethe trlining and 10providesuggestiOD$ to 1mJro,·e future training sessions. Dd"endantwill

7 provide a copy of these attendance re<:ords, the completed post-trl.ininll qlK'Stionnains, and the

8 training materials to the Commission within thiny (30) days of completion oflhc training.

9

Ii_ Postlllg l ..d other Notices to Employees

10

Defendant will posta copy ofiU policies reg;uWng sexuallwassment and the botline as

11 ~ in Section VO) ofchis Consent Decree in clearly visible locations where such DOlicn 12 generally addressing employee issues are normally and customarily posted.

13

Each employee mall be asked. to sign an acknowledgment that he or she has reccived and

14 read the policy. The same acknowledgment shall be required olall newly hired employees, including

15 all rnaMgcTS and supervi.sono, at the ltart of their empIoymcot.

16

17

VlL MONETARY RELIEF

18

Defendant agrees to pay the total sum ofTwo Hundred Thousand Dollars, to be allocated as

19 detemlined by the Commission to Claimants for their clainu IISSC! forth in this Decree. Within 30

20 (thiny) days liter the date of the lod&in& of this Decree with the Court"anci it being fullyueeutcd,

21 Defendant shall pay directly to EEOC !be fll"lit of two equal instal lment payments, each instaIhneoI

22 payment set forth in attached hhibit A. Exhibit A is incorporated herrin by rd"ermc:e and "ill be

23 separately med. with the Court under seal. The 5eCODd installment paymeot shall bcdueon orbefore

24 90 days after the date of the lodging oflhi! Decree. Each installment plyment sllall be in the form

25 of a certified theck:, made payable dirc<:tJy to the individual Claimant and mailed diJutly to the

26 EEOC in care of Linda Ordonio-Dilwn It the EEOC's San Francisco offices It 3'0 The

Z7 Embarcadero Street, Suile '00, San Francisco, CA 94105- 1260_

28

Defendant's payment shall be considemi timelyifi! is postmarl:ed within three days alter

c""..ftt Otcr«
C -tlofl!U_ R MW ( HRL)

",006_

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 74 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 7 of 11

1 the due date. In the event that the EEOC does not receive a payment within five days after the due
2 date,!be EEOC shall give Defendant written norice of !be alleged default by cmified mai~ and

3 thereafter Defendant shall have ten days within wIDch to eun: the alleged default In the e\'ent

4 Defendant then makes payment of the amount in default within len days after it receives ootice of

5 !be alleged default by certified mail, the payment schedule shall remain in effect. In the event, 6 . however, that Defendanl fails to make any paymenl within the aforementioned ten days, EEOC may

7 at il$ option, move the Court for entry ofjudgment against Defendant in the amount of the unpaid

8 balance of the Two Hundred Thousand Doll.ar:s settlement amount, plus interest on sueh l1Dp3.id

9 amount al!be rate of 10% per annum from the date of me defaultooly, less all amounlS previoosly 10 paid by Defendanl EEOC shall give notice of any such motion for entry ofjudgment to Defendant

11 and ilS attorneys. Ifjudgmcot is entered against Defiendant on sueh motions, EEOC may enforce and

12 collect !be judglllCl!l

13

2. The amounts above are being paid in complete compromise of all disputed issues,

14 including Intervener's state law claims, arising OUI of the Complaint and the Amended Complaint
15 in Intervention filed in this laWl;uil, Civil Action No. C-03..(11~22· RMW (HRL) EEOC v. Rowtown

16 Inc .,d.h.a. The Fish Hopper Restaurant in the United States DisuictCoun for the Northern Disllict 17 ofCalifornil.

18

19

VIII. REPORTING

20

I. Six months after entry of the Decree and every six months thereafter, Defendant will

21 submit reports to the Commission summarizing any requests for sexual b.arassment or retaliation 22 rece;\'ed by Defendantduring the precedingsix-month period. ~ reports will include the identities

23 of the complainant(s) and the alleged harasser(s), if any, and a summary of action taken in response 24 to the request or complainl

25

2. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant will send to the

26 EEOC a copy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Policy.

27

3. Within lhirty (30) days afteroomplction ofthe yearly employee and supervisory trainings

2B described in Section V(~) above, Defendant will send the Commission appropriate verification of

Conmlt ~c!ee
C·U·tIS U· R MW ( HRL)

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 74 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 8 of 11

1 its completion ofuaining, and will provide a copy of the records indi<.;atcd in Section V(6).

2

4. Defendant shall submit a final repon 10 the EEOC thirty (30) days !xfore!be CollKllt

3 Decree expireseontaining a statement verifying its compliance with the terms of!be Consent~.

4

5

IX. RETENTION OF JURISDICfION AJlm

EXPIRATION OF COi"iSEl'Io'T DECREE

6

I. The duration of this Consent Decree shall be three (3)years from the date ofenay of the

7

Decree, provided that defendant has complied SIIbstantiaUy with the terms of this Consent Decree.
8 Defendant will !x deemed 10 have complied !;Ubstanlially if the Court b.as nOt made any fmding or
9

orrlen during the term ofthe Consent Decree thal the defendant has failed to comply with any ternl$
10
ofthis Consent Decr«. 11
2. The EEOC shall be entitled to its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees in connection with

12
any civil action to enfo"'e compliance with the terms and f;onditions of this Consent [)c(:rec.
13
3. This Coun shall retain jurisdiction o\·er this matler and !be Parties for !be pW]lOSC of

14
enforcing compliance with !be Consent Decree, including issuing such ord= as may !x requimlto
" effrouate its pwposes.
16
4. Ifany provisions of this Consent ~ is found to be unenfo",eable by a court of 17
competent jurisdif;tion, only the spe<:ific provision in question shall be affected and the other
18

enforceable provisions shall remain in full furte and effed.
19

5. Any docu ments or information required to be submined by De fendant to the EEOC under

2J)

the lernl$ ofthis Consent Decr« shall be addressed to Linda Ordonio- Dixon, Trial Attorney, EEoc,
21

350 The Embarcadero Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, California 94102.
22 /I

23 /I

24 /I

25 /I

26 /I

Z1 /I

28 /I

Cou on! D«ftt
C_13"' 1522_ RM W (HRL)

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 74 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 9 of 11

1

2 Date<!:
3

'11r, ~D;.

•

5 Dated: GII1_) ~ ~

6

7
Dated: 8

9

10

11

12

13

I.

II!

15

16

17

18

19

'"
21

22

23

24

25

26

X7

28

CO....I D'~f• • C-U-OUll_ P.l>IW (HRL)

FRANK UBHAUS Berliner COOen
wJ<2r 1',/,,6 -I ;G
EILEEN KENNEDY
Berliner Cohen
CHRIS PANETTA FenlOn Keller
On behalf of Plaintiff:

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 74 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 10 of 11
,~~
Bo rll'.• ,t'h " .

,
, 2 0 ...
, • 0 ....' 6
,• , 7 0 .... 'j II'I'S
" n "
" "
"
"
"" "'''''
19 20
" ))atod:
22
" "
"
16 !hIed: 27
16
~_... Lo......
( '..3-1.." . aM ....' (lIItL)

011 bo~ ofDdi:..danl:
.""'""""" fll.M'K l/EHAUS
On behalfofPW:!IIire
JONAtHAN T. PECK
EOUrAyLTErMiPLaOlYAM~£N.v PORTlJI'>.TIY COM:\ilSSlON
Ln\'OA ORDOl'.1o.DIXON Tria! Atloroey EQVALEMPLOYMENT Ol'I'ORnINITY COMMISSION au behalf of Intt:rv=
DORO'IHYcfrow.t:OSiNOO
a-r lMiIlsIti

~ .~• .f.

Case 5:03-cv-01522-RMW Document 74 Filed 11/21/2005 Page 11 of 11

1121/05

/S/ RONALD M. WHYTE

 </s> CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?576650472691775-L_3...

ADRMOP, CLOSED, E-Filing, MEDTERM, REFSET-HRL
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Jose) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:03-cv-01522-RMW

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al v. Rowtown, Inc. Assigned to: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte Referred to: Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 04/10/2003 Date Terminated: 11/21/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Linda S. Ordonio-Dixon Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 350 Embarcadero Street Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1687 (415) 625-5654 Fax: (415) 625-5657 Email: linda.ordonio-dixon@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lucila G. Rosas U.S. EEOC 96 North Third Street Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 291-6401 Fax: (408) 291-4539 Email: Lucila.Rosas@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 04/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan T. Peck U.S. EEOC 350 Embarcadero Street Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1687 415/625-5600 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: Jonathan.Peck@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sanya P. Hill Maxion U.S. EEOC

1 of 9

7/31/2007 11:37 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
Plaintiff Masumeh T. Zanganeh
V. Defendant Rowtown, Inc. The Fish Hopper Restaurant
2 of 9

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?576650472691775-L_3...
350 The Embarcadero Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260 415-625-5650 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: sanya.hill@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Robert Tamayo U.S. EEOC 350 Embarcadero Street Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1687 415-625-5645 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: william.tamayo@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew Thomas Losinski Law Offices of Chow & Losinski 303 W. Joaquin Ave., Suite 200 San Leandro, CA 94577-3666 510-895-9099 Fax: 510-895-9119 Email: chow_losinski@sbcglobal.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dorothy K. Chow-Losinski Law Offices of Chow & Losinski 303 W. Joaquin Avenue, Suite 200 San Leandro, CA 94577 (510) 895-9099 Fax: (510) 895-9119 Email: dorchow@hotmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christine H. Long Berliner Cohen Ten Almaden Blvd. Eleventh Floor San Jose, CA 95113-2233 408/286-5800 Fax: 408-998-5388 Email: christine.long@berliner.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
7/31/2007 11:37 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?576650472691775-L_3...

Date Filed 04/10/2003
04/10/2003
04/10/2003 04/10/2003 06/13/2003 06/26/2003 06/26/2003 06/26/2003 06/26/2003 06/26/2003 06/26/2003

Eileen P. Kennedy Berliner Cohen Ten Almaden Boulevard 11th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 408-286-5800 Fax: 408-998-5388 Email: epk@berliner.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT Civil Rights Employment Discrimination; Summons Issued; Fees Waived against Rowtown, Inc. (). Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (cfe, ) Modified on 4/10/2003 (cfe, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 4/15/2003 (cfe, ). (Entered: 04/10/2003)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 8/5/2003. Case Management Conference set for 8/12/2003 at 01:30 PM.. Signed by Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 8/22/02. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(cfe, ) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (cfe, ) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
Summons Issued as to Rowtown, Inc. (cfe, ) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
3 ANSWER to Complaint by Rowtown, Inc.. (Kennedy, Eileen) (Entered: 06/13/2003)
4 Intervenor COMPLAINT for Damages and Injunctive Relief (Jury Demand). Filed by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (cfe, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/2/2003 (cfe, ). (Entered: 06/27/2003)
5 MOTION to Intervene as a Plaintiff filed by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. Motion Hearing set for 7/29/2003 10:00 AM. (cfe, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/2/2003 (cfe, ). (Entered: 06/27/2003)
6 NOTICE re 5 of Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (cfe, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/2/2003 (cfe, ). (Entered: 06/27/2003)
7 Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (cfe, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/2/2003 (cfe, ). (Entered: 06/27/2003)
8 AFFIDAVIT re 5 in Support of Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (cfe, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/2/2003 (cfe, ). (Entered: 06/27/2003)
9 MEMORANDUM in Support re 5 of Points and Authorities of Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff filed by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (Related document(s)5) (cfe, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/2/2003 (cfe, ). (Entered: 06/27/2003)

3 of 9

7/31/2007 11:37 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
06/26/2003 06/26/2003 06/27/2003 06/27/2003 06/27/2003 07/08/2003 07/08/2003 07/11/2003 07/14/2003 07/14/2003 07/14/2003 07/14/2003 07/14/2003
07/16/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003
4 of 9

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?576650472691775-L_3...
10 AFFIDAVIT re 5 of Matthew T. Losinski in Support of Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (cfe, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/2/2003 (cfe, ). (Entered: 06/27/2003)
11 CERTIFICATE/PROOF OF SERVICE by Masumeh T. Zanganeh re 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 4 (cfe, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/2/2003 (cfe, ). (Entered: 06/27/2003)
Received Order by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (cfe, ) (Entered: 06/30/2003)
12 CERTIFICATE/PROOF OF SERVICE by Masumeh T. Zanganeh (Amended) of Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff (cfe, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/2/2003 (cfe, ). (Entered: 06/30/2003)
13 CERTIFICATE/PROOF OF SERVICE by Masumeh T. Zanganeh re [] (cfe, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/2/2003 (cfe, ). (Entered: 06/30/2003)
14 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 5 Declaration of Eileen P. Kennedy filed by Rowtown, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Long, Christine) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
15 Memorandum in Opposition re 5 Zanganeh's Motion to Intervene filed by Rowtown, Inc.. (Long, Christine) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
16 Consent to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Rowtown, Inc.. (Kennedy, Eileen) (Entered: 07/11/2003)
17 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
18 Statement of Non-Opposition re 5 filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)5) (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
19 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (pmc, ) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
Set/Reset Deadlines:, Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Statement due by 8/15/2003. Case Management Conference set for 8/22/2003 at 10:30 AM. before Judge Ronald M. Whyte (pmc, ) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
20 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Ronald M. Whyte and Howard R. Lloyd for all further proceedings. Signed by Executive Committee on 7/14/03. (lrd, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/15/2003 (lrd, ). (Entered: 07/15/2003)
21 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing on Zanganeh's Motion to Intervene. Motion Hearing set for 8/22/2003 09:00 AM. (jv, ) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
22 Reply to Opposition re 5 filed by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (Chow, Dorothy) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
23 DECLARATION in Support re 5 Reply filed by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (Related document(s)5) (Chow, Dorothy) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
24 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion filed by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. Motion Hearing set for 8/22/2003 09:00 AM. (Chow, Dorothy) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
7/31/2007 11:37 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
08/14/2003 08/14/2003
08/18/2003
08/20/2003 08/25/2003 08/28/2003 08/29/2003 09/10/2003 09/12/2003 09/12/2003 09/15/2003 10/20/2003
10/22/2003 12/02/2003
12/02/2003
12/14/2003 12/19/2003

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?576650472691775-L_3...
25 NOTICE of need of ADR Phone Conference (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
26 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and Proposed Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
27 CLERK'S NOTICE: ADR Phone Conference scheduled for 8/20/03 at 2:30 p.m. Please take note that plaintiff's counsel initiates the call to all parties. (tjs, ) (Entered: 08/18/2003)
ADR Phone Conference by HAH (tjs, ) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
28 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing re 24 held on 8/22/2003 before Ronald M. Whyte. (Court Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge.) (jv, ) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
CASE REFERRED to Mediation per docket entry number 28. (af, Court Staff) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
29 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte granting 5 Motion to Intervene (rmwlc2) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
30 ADR Clerks Notice Of Appointment Of Mediator, Debra L. Mellinkoff, dated 9/10/2003. (af, ) (Entered: 09/10/2003)
Pre MED phone conference --Mediator available on 9/17, 9/19, 10/2, and 10/3/2003. (af, ) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
31 NOTICE of Change of Address by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (Chow, Dorothy) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
Pre MED phone conference set for 10/2/2003 at 3:00 PM., Mediator's office will initiate the call. (af, ) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
Set/Reset Hearings: Mediation Hearing set for 1/29/2004 10:00 AM., at Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 96 North Third St., Suite 200, San Jose, CA. Written statements due by close of business on 1/20/2004. (af, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
32 NOTICE of Change of Address of Sanya P. Hill Maxion by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
33 Letter from Frank R. Ubhaus dated 12/1/03 requesting to be excused for attending mediation. (dhm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2003) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
34 ORDER: Mr. Ubhaus is excused from attending the mediation currently set for 1/29/04 at 10:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Wayne Brazil on 12/1/2003. (dhm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2003) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
35 Proposed Order to Mediate and to Set Further Case Management Conference by Rowtown, Inc.. (Kennedy, Eileen) (Filed on 12/14/2003) (Entered: 12/14/2003)
36 Proposed Order Stipulated Protective Order by Rowtown, Inc.. (Kennedy, Eileen) (Filed on 12/19/2003) (Entered: 12/19/2003)

5 of 9

7/31/2007 11:37 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
12/31/2003 01/08/2004 02/05/2004 02/05/2004 02/05/2004 02/07/2004 02/11/2004
02/27/2004 04/16/2004 04/26/2004
05/19/2004 05/27/2004

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?576650472691775-L_3...
37 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 12/31/03. (hrllc2) (Filed on 12/31/2003) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
38 ORDER to Mediate and to Set a Further Case Management Conference.Case Management Conference set for 2/13/2004 10:30 AM. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 1/8/04. (jg, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/8/2004) (Entered: 01/08/2004)
39 CERTIFICATION OF MEDIATION Session dated 1/31/04; Mediation session held 1/29/04; Second mediation session set for 4/8/04. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2004) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Second Mediation Hearing set for 4/8/2004. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2004) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
40 STIPULATION (Joint) To Reset The Further Case Management Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 2/5/2004) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
41 AMENDED COMPLAINT in Intervention against Rowtown, Inc.. Filed by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (Chow, Dorothy) (Filed on 2/7/2004) (Entered: 02/07/2004)
42 STIPULATION AND ORDER to Reset the Further Case Management Conference. Further Case Management Conference is set for 4/23/04 @ 10:30 am. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 2/11/04. (jg, Court Staff) (Filed on 2/11/2004) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
43 Answer to Amended Complaint 41 in Intervention for Damages and Injunctive Relief by Rowtown, Inc.. (Kennedy, Eileen) (Filed on 2/27/2004) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
44 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (1st Supplement) and Proposed Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 4/16/2004) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
45 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 4/23/2004 before Ronald M. Whyte (Date Filed: 4/26/2004). Discovery cutoff by 12/17/2004. Jury Trial set for 5/11/2005 01:30 PM. Motion Hearing set for 3/11/2005 09:00 AM. Pretrial Conference set for 4/21/2005 02:00 PM. Settlement Conference with Judge Lloyd.(Court Reporter Not Reported.) (jg, Court Staff) (Date Filed: 4/26/2004) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
46 Proposed Order Further Case Management Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 5/19/2004) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
47 FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Non-expert discovery due 12/17/2004; Disclosure of Expert Testimony & Reports due 1/21/2005; Disclosure of Rebuttal Expert Witnesses due 2/11/2005; Expert Discovery due 2/25/2005; Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions 1/28/2005; Dispositive Motion Hearing set for 3/11/2005; Pretrial Statement due 4/15/2005; Pretrial Conference sent for 4/21/2005 at 2:00 p.m.; Trial set for 5/11/2005 at 1:30 p.m.. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 5/25/2004. (dhm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2004) (Entered: 05/27/2004)

6 of 9

7/31/2007 11:37 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
06/29/2004 07/26/2004 07/26/2004 07/26/2004 07/26/2004 07/26/2004 07/26/2004 07/26/2004 07/26/2004 07/30/2004 08/03/2004 08/12/2004 08/12/2004
08/19/2004 08/30/2004 08/30/2004

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?576650472691775-L_3...
48 NOTICE of Appearance by Lucila G. Rosas Attorney for Plaintiff (Rosas, Lucila) (Filed on 6/29/2004) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
49 NOTICE by Masumeh T. Zanganeh Notice of Motion (Chow, Dorothy) (Filed on 7/26/2004) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
50 First MOTION for Protective Order Motion and Memo of Law filed by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. Motion Hearing set for 8/20/2004 09:00 AM. (Chow, Dorothy) (Filed on 7/26/2004) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
51 Declaration in Support filed by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (Chow, Dorothy) (Filed on 7/26/2004) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
52 Proposed Order by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (Chow, Dorothy) (Filed on 7/26/2004) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
53 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Masumeh T. Zanganeh Proof of Service (Chow, Dorothy) (Filed on 7/26/2004) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
54 First MOTION to Shorten Time Application for OST filed by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. Motion Hearing set for 8/20/2004 09:00 AM. (Chow, Dorothy) (Filed on 7/26/2004) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
55 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Masumeh T. Zanganeh Certificate in Support of Application for OST (Chow, Dorothy) (Filed on 7/26/2004) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
56 Proposed Order for Order Shortening Time by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (Chow, Dorothy) (Filed on 7/26/2004) (Entered: 07/26/2004)
57 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 54 Application to Shorten Time (hrllc1, ) (Filed on 7/30/2004) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
58 Statement of Non-Opposition re 50 Motion for Protective Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)50) (Rosas, Lucila) (Filed on 8/3/2004) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
59 Memorandum in Opposition re 50 First MOTION for Protective Order Motion and Memo of Law filed by Rowtown, Inc.. (Long, Christine) (Filed on 8/12/2004) (Entered: 08/12/2004)
60 DECLARATION of Christine H. Long in Opposition to 59 Motion for Protective Order filed by Rowtown, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Deposition Excerpts)(Related document(s)59) (Long, Christine) (Filed on 8/12/2004) (Entered: 08/12/2004)
61 REPLY to Response to Motion for Protective Order filed by Masumeh T. Zanganeh. (Losinski, Matthew) (Filed on 8/19/2004) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
62 Letter from Christine Long Requesting Telephonic Appearance. (Long, Christine) (Filed on 8/30/2004) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
63 ORDER re 62 granting defendant's request to appear telephonically. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 8/30/04. (hrllc1, ) (Filed on 8/30/2004) (Entered: 08/30/2004)

7 of 9

7/31/2007 11:37 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
08/31/2004 08/31/2004 09/15/2004 11/03/2004
04/01/2005 04/01/2005 04/20/2005
06/17/2005
07/01/2005 10/14/2005 11/21/2005 09/29/2006
8 of 9

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?576650472691775-L_3...
64 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 8/31/2004 before Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd (Date Filed: 8/31/2004). (Tape #FTR.) (pmc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/31/2004) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
65 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion for Protective Order (hrllc1, ) (Filed on 8/31/2004) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
66 STIPULATION re 47 Order,, by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Filed on 9/15/2004) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
67 STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Jury Trial set for 10/11/2005 01:30 PM. Pretrial Conference set for 9/22/2005 02:00 PM. Dispositive Motions Hearing set for 8/12/05 @ 9:00 am. Discovery cutoff 5/20/05. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 11/3/04. (jg, Court Staff) (Filed on 11/3/2004) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
68 STIPULATION REQUESTING ORDER CHANGING TIME & PROPOSED ORDER by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ordonio-Dixon)(Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 4/1/2005) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
69 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Linda S. Ordonio-Dixon (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 4/1/2005) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
70 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DEADLINES: Jury Trial set for 1/30/2006 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose. Motion Hearing set for 11/18/2005 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose. Pretrial Conference set for 1/12/2006 02:00 PM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose. Discovery cutoff 8/19/05. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 4/14/05. (jg, Court Staff) (Filed on 4/20/2005) (Entered: 04/20/2005)
71 MOTION to Quash or Modify Defendant's Subpoenas filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2005 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose. (Attachments: # 1 Points & Authorities# 2 Proposed Order # 3 Affidavit # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 7# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 9)(Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 6/17/2005) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
72 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion re 71 Quashing of Defendant's Subpoenas filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 7/1/2005) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
73 Proposed Order CONSENT DECREE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A" (Will be filed w/Clerk under seal))(Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 10/14/2005) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
74 CONSENT DECREE: ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 11/21/05. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2005) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
FILE located at Federal Records Center (FRC) San Bruno, CA. Accession No:021-06-0082; Location No:746147; Box No:50. (pmc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2006) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
7/31/2007 11:37 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?576650472691775-L_3...

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
07/31/2007 09:35:00

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

5:03-cv-01522-RMW

6

Cost:

0.48

9 of 9

7/31/2007 11:37 AM

 </s> EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - November 2005

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement11-05.html

EEOC v. Rowtown, Inc., d/b/a The Fish Hopper Restaurant No. C-03-01522-RMW (HRL) (N.D. Ca. Nov. 21, 2005)
In this Title VII complaint, the San Francisco District Office alleged that defendant, a Monterey, California restaurant, subjected charging party and other young waitresses and hostesses (some just 17 or 18 years old) to sexual harassment and retaliated against charging party for complaining about the harassment. The women's male supervisors and coworkers engaged in severe and pervasive physical and verbal sexual harassment (calling women "sexy," "sweetie," or "babe," commenting on their bodies, whistling, leering, touching, grabbing, hugging, and kissing). Defendant initially took no action in response to charging party's several complaints about a particular coworker who subjected her to an escalating course of harassment over about 4 months. Defendant fired the perpetrator in early January 1998 after he came up behind charging party, grabbed her breasts, and kissed her on the cheek. After terminating the man, defendant disciplined the charging party three times in 2« weeks, and warned her that additional discipline would lead to termination. Due the continuing harassment and the retaliatory disciplinary actions, charging party quit, feeling she had no choice.
Under the 3-year consent decree resolving this case, defendant will pay seven claimants a total of $200,000 in monetary relief (in individual amounts to be determined by EEOC) in two equal installments due within 30 days and 90 days of the lodging of the decree. Defendant will ensure that its procedures and policies include an employee's right to complain about sexual harassment and retaliation, specific contact information (including an 800 number) for reporting discrimination, and a complaint and investigation procedure (with prompt and confidential investigations and, at the conclusion of the investigation, communication of the results and any remedial action).

1 of 1

7/31/2007 11:45 AM


[CONTENT] EEOC | San Francisco | April 2003 | the U.S. District Court | the Northern District | California | San Jose Division ||| Rowtown, Inc. | Title VII |||  |||  ||| November of 2005 ||| 200,000 ||| three years ||| 2008 [SUMMARY] The EEOC's San Francisco office filed this suit in April 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. The complaint alleged that defendant Rowtown, Inc., doing business as The Fish Hopper Restaurant, violated Title VII by creating a hostile work environment and causing the constructive discharge of a female employee because of her gender. The complainant was allegedly subjected to inappropriate comments and touching. The complainant intervened in the suit. 

The case was settled and the court entered a consent decree in November of 2005. The defendant agreed in the consent decree to pay the complainant $200,000, update its policies on sexual harassment, provide training for all of its employees and impose strict disciplinary guidelines for supervisors who engage in or permit harassment or retaliation. The decree was to last for three years. The docket sheet doesn't show show any further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2008.

