Case 1:13-cv-00698-LEK-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1

Anna Y. Park, CA SBN 164262 Sue J. Noh, CA SBN 192134 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-1083 Facsimile: (213) 894-1301 Email: lado.1egal@eeoc.gov
Amrita Mallik, CA SBN 249152 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, 7th Floor Honolulu, HI 96850 Telephone: (808)541-3133 Facsimile: (808) 541-3390 Email: amrita.mallik@eeoc.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF MAUl POLICE DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1-15, INCLUSIVE, .
Defendant.

) CAS-1}fV'1 3 0069 8 LEK KS(
~ COMPLAINT - CIVIL
) RIGHTS EMPLOYMENT
) DISCRIMINATION

) ) ) ) )

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

) JURY TRIAL DEMAND )

1

Case 1:13-cv-00698-LEK-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
) NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or the "Commission") under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., (the "ADEA"), to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of age and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Lars Sandstrom ("Charging Party" or "Mr. Sandstrom"), who was adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater particularity in Paragraph 14-24 below, the EEOC alleges that the Defendant County of Maui Police Department (hereinafter referred to as "Maui PD" or "Defendant") failed to hire Charging Party on the basis of his age, fortyfive (45), in violation of the ADEA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to §7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), which incorporates by reference §§ 16(c) and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (the "FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217. 2. The employment practices alleged herein to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the
2

Case 1:13-cv-00698-LEK-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3
District of Hawaii. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of the ADEA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by § 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as amended by § 2 of Reorganization Plan No.1 of 1978,92 Stat. 3781 and by Public Law 98-532 (1984) 98 Stat. 2705.
4. At all relevant times, De(endant has been continuously doing business in the State of Hawaii in the County of Maui and has continuously had at least 20 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §§ 11 (b), (g), and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(b), (g) and (h)6.
6. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of each Defendant sued as DOES 1 through 15, inclusively, and therefore Plaintiff EEOC sues said defendant(s) by fictitious names. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Complaint to name each DOE defendant individually or collectively as they become known. Plaintiff alleges that each DOE defendant was in some manner responsible for the acts and omissions alleged herein and Plaintiff will amend the Complaint to allege such responsibility when the SaI11e shall have been ascertained
3

Case 1:13-cv-00698-LEK-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4

by Plaintiff.

7.

All of the acts and failures to act alleged herein were duly performed

by and attributable to all Defendants, including DOES 1 to 15, each acting as a

successor, agent, alter ego, employee, indirect employer, joint employer, integrated

enterprise and/or under the direction and control of the others, except as

specifically alleged otherwise. Said acts and failures to act were within the scope

of such agency and/or employment, and each Defendant participated in, approved

and/or ratified the unlawful acts and omissions by the other Defendants

complained of herein. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this

Complaint to any act by a Defendant or Defendants, such allegations and reference

shall also be deemed to mean the acts and failures to act of each Defendant acting

individually, jointly, and/or severally.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

8. On July 10, 2009, more than thirty days prior to the institution of this

lawsuit, Lars Sandstrom filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging

that Defendant violated the ADEA.

9. The EEOC investigated the Charge against Defendant. Upon receipt

of the Charge, Defendant participated in the investigation by responding with a

position statement, providing responses to the EEOC's requests for information,

and providing information to support its response to the charge.

4

Case 1:13-cv-00698-LEK-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5
10. The EEOC issued a Letter of Determination finding that Defendant subjected Charging Party to discrimination by failing to hire him on the basis of his age (45) in violation of the ADEA.
11. Prior to instituting this lawsuit, the EEOC attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices herein alleged and to effect voluntary compliance with Defendant through informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion within the meaning of §7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).
12. The EEOC issued a conciliation proposal to Defendant but was unable to obtain a conciliation agreement acceptable to the EEOC. The EEOC then notified Defendant that efforts to conciliate had failed.
13. As detailed in paragraphs 8 through 12, all conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 14. Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices by failing to hire Mr. Sandstrom for the position of Police Officer I because of his age (45) in violation of the ADEA. Although Defendant's officials interviewed Mr. Sandstrom for the position after he passed the written civil service exam, Defendant denied him the opportunity to proceed in the selection process because they presumed he would be unable to meet the demands of the position due to this age.
5

Case 1:13-cv-00698-LEK-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6
15. Specifically, Charging Party applied for the position of Police Officer I with the County of Maui Police Department in 2009.
16. Charging Party was qualified for the position of Police Officer 1. He met all minimum qualifications for training and experience, minimum age of 20 years, good physical condition, 20120 distance vision with or without corrective lenses, possession of a driver's license, Hawaii state residency, and United States citizenship as defined in the Police Officer I recruitment advertisement published by Defendant. Charging Party's training and experience included, without limitation, military experience (3 years) and National Guard experience (4 years), a Bachelor's Degree, and significant work and life experience.
17. On or about March 31, 2009, Charging Party was notified that he had passed the initial written civil service exam with a high score above 90 points. As a result, Charging Party was scheduled for an oral interview.
18. On or about May 8,2009, Charging Party was interviewed by a panel consisting of Deputy Chief (now Chief of Police) Gary Yabuta ("Yabuta"), Captain Danny Matsuura ("Matsuura"), and Lieutenant Bradley Rezentes ("Rezentes") as part of the Police Officer application process.
19. During this interview, the panel made multiple disparaging, age-based remarks to Charging Party including, but not limited to, "I doubt someone your age could handle the stress of training." Defendant's panelist stated their doubts about
6

Case 1:13-cv-00698-LEK-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7
whether Charging Party could perform the physical holds required due to his age; and whether someone Charging Party's age could take directives from a younger person. One panelist admitted that one of his standard interview questions is whether an applicant could take directives from a younger person.
20. Defendant decided not to hire Charging Party after his panel interview. 21. During the hiring period of January 4, 2009 through October 31, 2009, Defendant's hiring panels routinely used age-based language when writing notes during interviews. Examples of these statements include but are not limited to:
a. "very good, young applicant," b. "young - shows potential," c. "young but poised," and d. "young candidate with a lot of potential." 22. During the hiring period of January 4,2009 through October 31, 2009, when Charging Party's application would have been considered, at least 28 applicants were hired who were younger than Charging Party and were less qualified for the position than Charging Party on the basis of their education, experience and civil service written exam scores. 23. On or about December 3, 2009, at least one other applicant heard ageist remarks during her interview process. 24. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 1423 were willful within the meaning of section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §
7

Case 1:13-cv-00698-LEK-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 8
626(b). PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the EEOC respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, successors, and assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practices which results in discrimination on the basis of age. B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for persons forty (40) years of age and older, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices; C. Grant a judgment requiring Defendants to pay Charging Party appropriate wages and benefits in an amount to be detemnned at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest. D. Order Defendants to make Charging Party whole by providing the affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful practices including, but not limited to, rightful-place reinstatement with seniority restored, or front pay in lieu thereof. E. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
8

Case 1:13-cv-00698-LEK-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 9

F . Award the EEOC its costs in this action.

JURY DEMAND

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

Complaint.

Dated: December 16,2013

Respectfully Submitted,

P. DAVID LOPEZ General Counsel

JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
~;~~:=>

Regional Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Los Angeles District Office

9

 </s> Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 106

Anna Y. Park, CA SBN 164262 Sue J. Noh, CA SBN 192134 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-1083 Facsimile: (213) 894-1301 Email: lado.legal@eeoc.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

) )

Case No.:

1:13-cv-00698 -KSC

)

) CONSENT DECREE;

Plaintiff,

) )

ORDER

)

vs.

) )

)

COUNTY OF MAUI and DOES 1-15, INCLUSIVE,

) ) )

)

Defendants.

) )

)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”)

and Defendant County of Maui on behalf of the Maui Police Department

(“Defendant MPD”) hereby stipulate and agree to entry of this Consent Decree (the

-1-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 107
“Decree”) to fully and finally resolve Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant in U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. County of Maui and Does 110, inclusive; Case No. 1:13-cv-00698-LEK-KSC (the “Action”). On December 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed this Action in the United States District Court, District of Hawaii, for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. (“ADEA”). The Action alleged that Defendant MPD discriminated against an individual applicant for a police officer position with the Maui Police Department by failing to hire him on the basis of his age. The events underlying the EEOC's action occurred under an administration prior to Chief Faaumu.
II. PURPOSES AND SCOPE OF THE CONSENT DECREE A. The Decree is made and entered into by and between the EEOC and the County of Maui on behalf of Defendant MPD and shall be binding on and enforceable against Defendant, MPD, as well as its officers, directors, agents, successors and assigns. Collectively, the EEOC and County of Maui, on behalf of the Maui Police Department, are referred to herein as the “Parties.” B. The Parties have entered into this Decree for the following purposes:
1. To provide appropriate monetary and injunctive relief; 2. To ensure employment practices in compliance with federal law;
-2-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 108
3. To ensure a work environment free from retaliation; 4. To ensure training in employment discrimination law; and 5. To ensure appropriate recording keeping, reporting, and monitoring. C. This Decree, as described in further detail in Section IX and X, below will be implemented by Defendant MPD. The County is referred to as a Defendant in this matter for employment of the EEO monitor, payment of any monetary settlement, issuance of tax forms and for reporting information related to a monetary settlement to the Internal Revenue Service or any other tax authority as respectively described in Sections VIII and X.
III. RELEASE OF CLAIMS A. This Decree fully and completely resolves all issues, claims and allegations raised by the EEOC against Defendant MPD in this Action. B. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to limit or reduce Defendant MPD’s obligation to comply fully with the ADEA or any other federal employment statute. C. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude the EEOC from bringing suit to enforce this Decree in the event that any party fails to perform the promises and representations contained herein.
-3-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 109
D. This Decree in no way affects the EEOC’s right to bring, process, investigate or litigate other charges that may be in existence or may later arise against Defendant MPD in accordance with standard EEOC procedures.
IV. JURISDICTION A. The Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter of this litigation. The Action asserts claims that, if proven, would authorize the Court to grant the equitable relief set forth in this Decree. The terms and provisions of this Decree are fair, reasonable and just. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the ADEA and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. B. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action during the duration of the Decree for the purposes of entering all orders, judgments and decrees that may be necessary to implement the relief provided herein.
V. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF DECREE A. The provisions and agreements contained herein are effective immediately upon the date which this Decree is entered by the Court (the “Effective Date”).
-4-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 110
B. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Decree shall remain in effect for three (3) years after the Effective Date.
VI. MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY A. This Decree constitutes the complete understanding of the Parties with respect to the matters contained herein. No waiver, modification or amendment of any provision of this Decree will be effective unless made in writing and signed by an authorized representative of each of the Parties. B. If one or more provisions of the Decree are rendered unlawful or unenforceable, the Parties shall make good faith efforts to agree upon appropriate amendments in order to effectuate the purposes of the Decree. In any event, the remaining provisions will remain in full force and effect unless the purposes of the Decree cannot, despite the Parties’ best efforts, be achieved. C. By mutual agreement of the Parties, this Decree may be amended or modified in the interests of justice and fairness in order to effectuate the provisions herein.
VII. COMPLIANCE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. The Parties expressly agree that if the EEOC has reason to believe that Defendant and/or MPD has failed to comply with any provision of this Consent
-5-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 111
Decree, the EEOC may bring an action before this Court to enforce the Decree. Prior to initiating such action, the EEOC will notify Defendant and/or MPD, in writing, of the nature of the dispute. This notice shall specify the particular provision(s) that the EEOC believes Defendant and/or MPD breached. Absent a showing by either party that the delay will cause irreparable harm, Defendant and/or MPD shall have thirty (30) days to attempt to resolve or cure any nonmonetary breach and shall have thirty (30) days to attempt to resolve or cure any monetary breach.
B. After thirty (30) days have passed with respect to any non-monetary breach, or thirty (30) days have passes with respect to any monetary breach, if the Parties have reached no resolution or agreement to extend the time further, the EEOC may petition this Court for resolution of the dispute, seeking all available relief, including an extension of the term of the Decree, the EEOC’s costs and any attorneys’ fees incurred in securing compliance with the Decree, and/or any other relief the court deems appropriate.
VIII. MONETARY RELIEF A. Defendant County of Maui, on behalf of the Defendant Maui Police Department, will pay a total of $24,000.00, to be distributed to the Charging Party (“distribution amount”). The EEOC has full and complete discretion under the
-6-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 112
terms of this Decree to determine the amounts of any payments to be distributed and the characterization of such payments as income, wages or otherwise, as hereinafter described in this Decree.
B. The EEOC will provide Defendant County of Maui with the Charging Party’s current address, the distribution amount and any relevant identifying information (hereafter “Distribution List”). Within thirty (30) days of the EEOC providing the Distribution List, the Defendant County of Maui shall send a cashier’s check or money order to the Charging Party via certified mail, return receipt requested.
C. Payment shall be made in one check for unclassified damages and for this payment Defendant of Maui, in the ordinary course, shall prepare and distribute 1099 tax reporting forms, if required by law, and shall make any appropriate reports to the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities. Defendant County of Maui shall be solely responsible for any costs associated with the issuance and distribution of tax reporting forms to the Charging Party.
D. Within three (3) business days of the issuance of the settlement check or the issuance of tax reporting forms, Defendant County of Maui shall submit a copy of the check, tax reporting forms, and related correspondence to Anna Y. Park, Regional Attorney, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los
-7-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 113
Angeles District Office, 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90012.
IX. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF A. Non-Discrimination: Defendant MPD, including all managerial and non-managerial employees, and all those in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined from discriminating against persons on the basis of age (over 40) in hiring decisions, termination decisions, performance evaluations, transfers, demotions, promotions, or any terms and conditions of employment. B. Retaliation: Defendant MPD, including all managerial and non-managerial employees, and all those in active concert or participation with them, or any of them, are hereby enjoined from implementing or permitting any action, policy or practice with the purpose of retaliating against any current or former employee or applicant of Defendant MPD, because he or she has in the past, or during the term of this Decree: 1. Opposed any practice made unlawful under the ADEA; 2. Filed a charge of discrimination alleging such practice;
-8-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 114
3. Participated in any manner in an internal or external investigation or proceeding relating to this case or any claim of a violation of the ADEA; 4. Was identified as a possible witness or claimant in this action; 5. Asserted any right under this Decree; or 6. Sought and/or received any relief in accordance with this Decree.
X. SPECIFIC INJUNCTIVE RELIEF A. Equal Employment Opportunity Monitor Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, the Parties agree that Defendant MPD will designate Ralph Thomas as an Equal Employment Opportunity Monitor ("Monitor") to monitor Defendant MPD’s compliance with the ADEA and the provisions of this Decree. Defendant MPD shall bear all costs associated with the selection and retention of the Monitor and the performance of his duties. The Monitor's responsibilities shall include: 1. ensuring that Defendant MPD’s procedures to handle complaints of discrimination and retaliation comply with its obligations under the ADEA and this Decree; 2. ensuring that Defendant MPD is using the County of Maui’s antidiscrimination policy and reporting procedure effectively to carry out its obligations under this Decree;
-9-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 115
3. ensuring that all employees are trained on their rights and responsibilities under the ADEA, including but not limited to the responsibilities to provide a workplace free of age discrimination; 4. ensuring that all employees are trained on policies and procedures relating to age-based discrimination/harassment and retaliation; 5. monitoring Defendant MPD’s investigation of all complaints of age-based discrimination/ harassment and retaliation to ensure compliance with Title VII; 6. ensuring that Defendant MPD properly communicates with complainants regarding the complaint procedure, status of the complaint investigation, results of the investigation, and if any remedial action was taken except that the specific disciplinary action will not be disclosed pursuant to the applicable collective bargaining agreement; 7. ensuring that Defendant MPD’s reports required by this Decree are accurately compiled and timely submitted; 8. ensuring that Defendant MPD’s disciplinary policies hold employees and managers accountable for failing to take appropriate action or for engaging in conduct prohibited under this Decree; 9. ensuring that Defendant MPD creates a centralized system of tracking age discrimination and retaliation complaints;
-10-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 116
10. ensuring that Defendant MPD creates and implements recruitment strategies designed to encompass an applicant pool of all potential employees, regardless of age in compliance with the ADEA; 11. ensuring that the terms and conditions of employment are the same for workers of all ages; 12. create and prepare an assessment tool to determine whether the terms and conditions of employment are equal for all employees regardless of age; 13. further ensuring compliance with the terms of this Decree; and 14. preparing a brief annual report on Defendant MPD’s progress, including its compliance with the terms of this Decree and the Monitor’s compliance with his/her responsibilities as articulated herein.
The Monitor shall ensure compliance for the foregoing provisions for the term of the Decree.
In the event that Defendant MPD needs to nominate a new EEO monitor at any time during the term of the Decree, Defendant MPD shall propose a new monitor with demonstrated experience in the area of employment discrimination and age discrimination issues, to the EEOC within forty-five (45) days of Mr. Thomas’ final day as EEO Monitor. If the Commission does not approve the proposed new Monitor, the Commission shall work with Defendant MPD to find a
-11-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 117
suitable new monitor. Defendant shall bear all costs associated with the selection and retention of the new Monitor and the performance of his/her/its duties.
B. Policies and Procedures Defendant MPD, using the County of Maui’s Policy Against Discrimination, shall review, revise, distribute, and implement its policies and procedures against discrimination and retaliation prohibited by the ADEA (the “Policy”). The Policy shall include: 1. A clear explanation of prohibited conduct; 2. Assurance that employees who make complaints of discrimination or who provide information related to such complaints are protected against retaliation; 3. a clearly described complaint process for age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation that provides accessible avenues of making a complaint against coworkers, including the complainant’s supervisors, that allows for complaints to be initiated verbally, although it may require that the substance of the complaint be recorded later in writing; 4. an assurance that Defendant MPD and the County of Maui will protect the confidentiality of discrimination complaints to the extent possible from being disclosed to those who do not need to know; 5. a complaint process that provides a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation;
-12-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 118
6. a requirement that any employee in a supervisory position who receives a complaint of discrimination, whether formal or informal, written or verbal, report such complaint to the County of Maui’s EEO, Ralph Thomas, within 72 hours of receiving said complaint, or in special circumstances such as weekends or holidays, the information will be forwarded no later than the next business day; 7. an assurance that Defendant MPD’s disciplinary policies hold employees, managers and supervisors accountable for failing to take appropriate action or for engaging in conduct prohibited under this Decree; 8. a procedure for communicating with the complainant in writing regarding the status of the complaint /investigation, results of the investigation, and if any remedial action was taken except that the specific disciplinary action will not be disclosed pursuant to the applicable collective bargaining agreement; and 9. Assurance that Defendant MPD will take prompt and appropriate corrective action when it determines that discrimination and/or retaliation has occurred Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Decree, Defendant MPD, using the County of Maui’s Policy Against Discrimination, shall provide to the EEOC a copy of the Policy. Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date, Defendant MPD shall ensure that it has distributed its Policy to each managerial and nonmanagerial employee. Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date, Defendant MPD shall submit to the Commission a statement confirming distribution of the
-13-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 119
Policy. For each new managerial or non-managerial employee hired after the initial distribution of the Policy described above, Defendant MPD shall ensure that the new employee and/or manager receives the Policy within thirty (30) days of employment.
C. Training 1. Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Decree, Defendant MPD shall provide training of at least two hour duration to each employee at the Maui Police Department who participates in the hiring process. The training shall cover the Policy and federal laws regarding employment discrimination on the basis of age, with an emphasis on hiring, terms & conditions of employment, and the specific role of hiring committees in assuring compliance with the Policy and federal law. All persons required to attend such training shall verify their attendance in writing. Within thirty (30) days before each initial and annual training within MPD, Defendant MPD shall submit to the EEOC a statement describing the training it intends to provide and the materials it intends to use in this training. If no substantive changes have been made to the training materials since the last submission, MPD will not be required to submit new training materials within the thirty (30) days of the annual training . MPD shall submit an email or other written correspondence confirming that there are no new training materials. Email submissions of the training material is acceptable.
-14-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 120
2. By the end of each year after the Effective Date throughout the term of this Decree, Defendant MPD shall provide another training of at least one hour duration to each of its employees . This training shall cover the Policy and federal laws regarding employment discrimination on the basis of age, with an emphasis on terms & conditions of employment, and the specific role of supervisory employees in assuring compliance with the Policy and federal law and ensuring fairness to all applicants throughout the hiring process. All persons required to attend such training shall verify their attendance in writing. Within thirty (30) days of each training, Defendant MPD shall submit to the EEOC a statement describing the training it intends to provide and the materials it intends to use in this training. 3. Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Decree, Defendant MPD shall provide training of at least one hour duration to all of its employees covering the Policy and federal laws regarding employment discrimination on the basis of age, with an emphasis on terms & conditions of employment. All persons required to attend such training shall verify their attendance in writing. Within thirty (30) days before each training, Defendant MPD shall submit to the EEOC a statement describing the training it intends to provide and the materials it intends to use in this training. 4. By the end of each year after the Effective Date throughout the term of this Decree and on an annual basis, Defendant MPD shall provide another training of at
-15-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 121
least one hour duration to all other employees covering the Policy and federal laws regarding employment discrimination on the basis of age, with an emphasis on hiring and terms & conditions of employment. All persons required to attend such training shall verify their attendance in writing. Within thirty (30) days of each initial and annual training within MPD, Defendant MPD shall submit to the EEOC a statement describing the training it intends to provide and the materials it intends to use in this training. If no substantive changes have been made to the training materials since the last submission, MPD will not be required to submit new training materials within the thirty (30) days of the annual training. MPD shall submit an email or other written correspondence confirming that there are no new training materials. Email submissions of the training material is acceptable.
D. Record Keeping Defendant MPD shall establish a record-keeping procedure that provides for the centralized tracking of employment decisions, discrimination complaints and the monitoring of such complaints to prevent retaliation. The records to be maintained shall include: 1. All documents generated in connection with any complaint, investigation into, or resolution of every complaint of age discrimination or retaliation for the duration of the Decree and the identities of the parties involved;
-16-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 122
2. All forms acknowledging any employee or manager’s receipt of the Policy as required under this Decree; 3. All documents verifying the occurrence of all training sessions and names and positions of all attendees for each session as required under this Decree; 4. All documents generated in connection with the monitoring, counseling, or disciplining of employees whom Defendant MPD determined to have engaged in behavior that may be discriminatory, harassing, and/or retaliatory; 5. All documents generated in connection with Defendant MPD’s confidential follow-up inquiries into whether any complainant believes he or she has been retaliated against; and 6. All documents generated in connection with the establishment or review of performance evaluation measures for managers, supervisors, and human resource employees.
Defendant MPD will make the aforementioned records available to the EEOC within ten business days following a written request by the EEOC.
E. Performance Evaluations For the annual review cycle, Defendant MPD shall revise their performance evaluation forms for managers and supervisors involved in the hiring process, who are subject to performance evaluations, to include as measures for performance compliance with the policy and with federal antidiscrimination laws. To the extent
-17-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 123
that managers and supervisors are not subject to performance evaluations, Defendant shall otherwise ensure that managers and supervisors are held accountable for complying with the Policy and federal antidiscrimination laws.
F. Posting Within ten (10) business days after the Effective Date and throughout the term of this Decree, Defendant MPD shall post the notice attached to the Decree as Exhibit A, in a clearly visible location frequented by employees at all of Defendant MPD’s facilities within the County of Maui during the term of this Decree. The notice shall remain posted for the duration of the decree.
G. Reporting Defendant MPD, through its EEO Monitor, shall provide the following reports annually throughout the term of this Decree beginning one year from the Decree effective date: 1. The attendance lists of all attendees for all training sessions required under this Decree that took place during the previous twelve months; 2. A description of all age discrimination and/or retaliation complaints made since the submission of the immediately preceding report hereunder. This description shall include the names of the individuals alleging age discrimination or retaliation, the nature of the discrimination or retaliation, the names of the alleged perpetrators of the age discrimination or retaliation, the dates of the alleged
-18-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: 124
age discrimination or retaliation, a brief summary of how each complaint was resolved, and the identity of the Defendant MPD employee(s) who investigated and/or resolved each complaint. If no results have been reached as of the time of the report, the result shall be included in the next report; and 3. Confirm the Notice Posting requirement as set forth in Section F is in full compliance throughout the duration of the Decree. 4. An analysis of the investigation of complaints, including the monitoring done for multiple complaints made against the same person. 5. A description of all recruitment efforts made by Defendant MPD and what steps Defendant MPD has taken to ensure recruitment from an age-diverse applicant pool, including those over 40. 6. A copy of the policy against and complaint procedure for age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation after consultation with the EEO Monitor in compliance with the Consent Decree. 7. A summary report of Defendant MPD’s investigation into any complaint about age discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation for complaining about age discrimination and/or harassment. The investigation report shall include the following for each complaint during the reporting period:
(a). the name and title of the complaining party(ies); (b). the date of the complaint;
-19-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 20 of 23 PageID #: 125
(c). the name and title of the alleged harasser(s)/offender(s); (d) the name and title of the person(s) who conducted the investigation into the complaint; (e) the nature of the complaint (i.e. comments, acts, etc.) (f) the date of the commencement and completion of the investigation; (g) a brief description of the investigation (i.e. number of persons interviewed, materials reviewed); (h) the outcome of the investigation and any action taken; and. (i) whether previous age discrimination and/or harassment complaints had been made regarding the alleged harasser(s)/offender(s). If so, the report should also include the outcome of the prior investigations. 8. A report detailing the performance evaluation given to managers and supervisors as described in subsection E above; and 9. A report containing the age of every person hired into the position of Police Officer during the previous twelve months. All reports under this Paragraph shall be directed to: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Attn. Regional Attorney, 255 E. Temple Street, 4th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012. / / / / / /
-20-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 21 of 23 PageID #: 126
XI. COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF CONSENT DECREE Defendant MPD shall bear all costs associated with its administration and implementation of its obligations under this Consent Decree.
XII. COSTS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Each party shall bear its own costs of suit and attorneys’ fees.
XIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. During the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant MPD shall assure that each of its officers, managers and supervisors is aware of any term(s) of this Decree which may be related to his/her job duties. B. Unless otherwise stated, all notices, reports and correspondence required under this Decree shall be delivered to the attention of Anna Y. Park, Regional Attorney, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90012; facsimile number (213) 8941301. C. The Parties agree to entry of this Decree and judgment subject to final approval by the Court.
-21-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 22 of 23 PageID #: 127

All parties, through the undersigned, respectfully apply for and consent to this

entry of this Consent Decree Order.

Respectfully submitted,

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ANNA Y. PARK

Date:

5/1/2016

Anna Y. Park By: Anna Y. Park
Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

DEPARTMENT OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL, COUNTY OF MAUI MOANA M. LUTEY

Date:

4/21/2016

Moana M. Lutey By: Moana M. Lutey
Attorneys for Defendant County of Maui

-22-

Case 1:13-cv-00698-KSC Document 43 Filed 05/09/16 Page 23 of 23 PageID #: 128
ORDER The provisions of the foregoing Consent Decree are hereby approved and compliance with all provisions thereof is HEREBY ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 9, 2016.
_____________________________ Kevin S.C. Chang United States Magistrate Judge
-23-

 </s> Case: 1:13-cv-698 As of: 03/22/2018 11:33 AM HST 1 of 7
CLOSED,CONSENT
U.S. District Court District of Hawaii (Hawaii) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−00698−KSC

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Police Department, County of Maui et al Assigned to: JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG Cause: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/18/2013 Date Terminated: 05/09/2016 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Amrita Mallik US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Seventh Floor Honolulu, HI 96850 (808) 541−3133 Fax: (808) 541−3390 Email: amrita.mallik@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anna Y. Park US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Los Angeles Los Angeles District Office Roybal Federal Building 255 East Temple Street 4th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−1080 Fax: 213−894−1301 Email: lado.legal@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Connie Liem US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Diego San Diego Local Office 555 West Beech St Ste 504 San Diego, CA 92101 619−557−7282 Fax: 619−557−7274 Email: connie.liem@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rumduol Vuong U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 2300 Tulare Street, Ste 215 Fresno, CA 93721 559−487−5135 Fax: (213) 894−1301 Email: rumduol.vuong@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sue J. Noh US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Los Angeles Los Angeles District Office

Case: 1:13-cv-698 As of: 03/22/2018 11:33 AM HST 2 of 7
Roybal Federal Building 255 East Temple Street 4th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90012 213 894−1082 Fax: 213 894−1301 Email: Sue.Noh@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Police Department, County of Maui
Defendant Does 1−15, Inclusive

represented by Moana Monique Lutey Department of the Corporation Counsel County of Maui 200 S High St Wailuku, HI 96793 808 270−7740 Fax: 808−270−7152 Email: moana.lutey@co.maui.hi.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard B. Rost Department of the Corporation Counsel County of Maui 200 S High St Wailuku, HI 96793 808 270−7740 Email: richard.rost@co.maui.hi.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas W. Kolbe Department of the Corporation Counsel Maui County of Maui 200 S High St Wailuku, HI 96793 808−270−7580 Email: thomas.kolbe@co.maui.hi.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/18/2013
12/18/2013 12/18/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT − Civil Rights Employment Discrimination ~ Jury Trial Demand against Police Department, County of Maui, filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ecs, ) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
2 Summons in a Civil Action Issued as to Police Department, County of Maui. (ecs, ) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
3 Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for 09:00AM on 3/24/2014 before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 12/18/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Re: Corporate Disclosure Statements)(ecs, ) (Entered: 12/20/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-698 As of: 03/22/2018 11:33 AM HST 3 of 7

01/28/2014 03/17/2014 03/25/2014 04/17/2014 04/18/2014 04/18/2014 04/21/2014 04/25/2014
04/28/2014

4 EO: At Plaintiff's request, Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set 3/24/14 shall be continued to 09:00AM on 4/25/2014 before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference statements due: 4/18/14. Amrita Mallik to notify all parties. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 01/28/2014)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Police Department, County of Maui served on 3/6/2014, answer due 3/27/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Service of Summons)(Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
6 Defendant County of Maui ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Police Department, County of Maui.(Rost, Richard) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
7 REPORT of Planning Meeting JOINT REPORT OF MEETING AND [PROPOSED] DISCOVERY PLAN PURSUANT TO FRCP 26(f) AND LR 26.1. (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
8 Scheduling Conference Statement Plaintiff EEOC's Rule 16 Scheduling Conference Statement; Certificate of Service. (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
9 Scheduling Conference Statement Defendant County of Maui's Scheduling Conference Statement; Certificate of Service. (Rost, Richard) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
10 EO: re 4 Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set 4/25/14 at 9:00am before Judge Chang. Thomas W. Kolbe to participate by phone and notify all parties. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 04/21/2014)
11 EP: Rule 16 Scheduling Conference held on 4/25/2014. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference Order to be issued. Status Conference Re: Early Settlement Conference, by phone, set 5/15/14 at 9:00am before Judge Chang. Jury Selection/Trial set for 09:00 AM on 4/28/2015 before JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/17/2015 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Settlement Conference set for 1/22/2015 10:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Motions due by 11/26/2014. Discovery due by 2/27/2015. ( In Chambers − no record, 9:05−9:10am.) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 04/25/2014)
12 RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER:. Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 04/28/2014. (eps)

04/30/2014 04/30/2014 05/15/2014
06/13/2014 07/11/2014

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 04/28/2014)
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Police Department, County of Maui [Re: County of Maui's Initial Disclosures] (Rost, Richard) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Declaration of Service re EEOC's Initial Disclosures (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
15 EP: Status Conference Re: Early Settlement Conference held on 5/15/2014. Counsel agree to an Early Settlement Conference date of 7/11/14 at 10:00am before Judge Chang. Confidential Settlement Conference statements due: 7/7/14. (In Chambers − no record, 9:15−9:20am.) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 05/15/2014)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Connie Liem on behalf of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Liem, Connie) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
17 EP: Early Settlement Conference held on 7/11/2014. Counsel to exchange additional information and discovery. Further Early Settlement Conference on call. (In Chambers − no record, 10:10−10:40am.) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 07/11/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-698 As of: 03/22/2018 11:33 AM HST 4 of 7

10/09/2014 11/14/2014
11/17/2014

18 NOTICE of Appearance by Rumduol Vuong on behalf of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Vuong, Rumduol) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
19 STIPULATION [FIRST STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINES FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF EXPERTS; COMPLETE DISCOVERY; FILE NON DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS; FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS; PRETRIAL CONFERENCE; SUBMIT FINAL PRETRIAL STATEMENT; TRIAL] by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Vuong, Rumduol) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
20 EO: Status Conference Re: Stipulation to Extend Deadlines 19 set for 11/19/2014 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )

11/17/2014 11/17/2014 11/19/2014 11/24/2014 11/24/2014

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 11/17/2014)
21 EO: re 20 Status Conference Re: Stipulation to Extend Deadlines 19 set for 11/19/2014 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Rumduol Vuong to participate by phone and notify all parties. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 11/17/2014)
22 EO: re 20 Status Conference Re: Stipulation to Extend Deadlines 19 set for 11/19/2014 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Moana Lutey to participate by phone and notify all parties. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 11/17/2014)
23 EP: Status Conference Re: Stipulation to Extend Deadlines 19 held on 11/19/2014. Discussion held regarding new trial date and deadlines. Counsel to discuss consent to a magistrate. (In Chambers − no record, 9:05−9:10am.) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 11/19/2014)
24 NOTICE, CONSENT, AND REFERENCE OF A CIVIL ACTION TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE − Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 11/24/2014. Case reassigned to Magistrate JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Please reflect new case number CV 13−00698 KSC on all further pleadings. (emt, ) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
25 NOTICE of Case Reassignment: Please reflect Civil case number CV 13−00698 KSC on all further pleadings. (emt, )

11/25/2014

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 11/24/2014)
26 EO: Jury Selection/Trial currently set for 09:00 AM on 4/28/2015 before JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI will be held before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. (JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI)(wnn, )

11/25/2014

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 11/25/2014)
27 EO: re 24 Magistrate Consent filed 11/24/14. By agreement of counsel, Jury Trial date continued from 4/28/15 to 2/2/16 at 9:00am before Judge Chang. First Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Conference Order to be issued. Jury Selection/Trial set for 09:00 AM on 2/2/2016 before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/22/2015 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Settlement Conference set for 10/2/2015 10:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Discovery due by 12/4/2015. Motions due by 9/2/2015. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case: 1:13-cv-698 As of: 03/22/2018 11:33 AM HST 5 of 7

12/02/2014 12/08/2014

Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 11/25/2014)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Police Department, County of Maui Re: Defendant County of Maui's response to Plaintiff EEOC's written interrogatories to Defendant County of Maui (set one) and Defendant County of Maui's response to Plaintiff EEOC's requests for production of documents to Defendant County of Maui (set one) (Lutey, Moana) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
29 AMENDED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 12/8/2014. (afc)

12/23/2014

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on
the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). All participants are registered to receive electronic notifications. (Entered: 12/08/2014)
30 EO: Final Pretrial Conference set 12/22/15 shall be continued to 1/5/2016 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Final Pretrial Conference statements due: 12/29/15. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )

02/03/2015 03/03/2015 03/03/2015
03/12/2015 03/12/2015 03/12/2015 04/14/2015 07/15/2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 12/23/2014)
31 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Police Department, County of Maui Re: Defendant County of Maui's First Request for Answers to Interrogatories to Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lutey, Moana) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
32 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Re: EEOC's Response to Defendant County of Maui Police Department's First Request for Answers to Interrogatories (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
ADVISORY ENTRY re: judge initials reflected with case number − docket entry number 32 Certificate of Service filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. With reference to the November 24, 2014 filing of the "Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge," please reflect Civil Case Number CIV NO. 13−00698−KSC on all further documents and pleadings. No further action necessary. (afc) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Re EEOC's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant County of Maui (Mallik, Amrita) Modified on 3/12/2015 Note: Viewing has been restricted; the filing party advised that the incorrect document was attached to this entry and the correct document will be filed. (emt, ). (Entered: 03/12/2015)
ADVISORY ENTRY. The entry docket number 33 Certificate of Service filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was filed incorrectly in this case. The filing party has notified the Clerks Office that the incorrect document was attached to this entry. The filing party will resubmit a corrected filing. The Clerks Office will restrict viewing to the errant filing. (emt, ) (Entered: 03/12/2015)
34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of EEOC's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant County of Maui (Mallik, Amrita) (Entered: 03/12/2015)
35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Police Department, County of Maui RE: DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MAUI'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF EEOC'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MAUI (Lutey, Moana) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
36 STIPULATION [SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF EXPERTS; COMPLETE DISCOVERY; FILE NON DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS; FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS; PRETRIAL CONFERENCE; SUBMIT

Case: 1:13-cv-698 As of: 03/22/2018 11:33 AM HST 6 of 7

07/20/2015 07/22/2015
07/23/2015 03/29/2016 03/31/2016 04/25/2016

FINAL PRETRIAL STATEMENT; TRIAL] by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Vuong, Rumduol) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
37 EO: Status Conference Re−Resetting of the Trial Date and Scheduling Deadlines set for 7/22/2015 at 09:30 AM before MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Counsel may participate telephonically. Call Leslie Sai, Courtroom Manager (808) 541−3089 to give the telephone number that you may be reached at. (MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(lls, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 07/20/2015)
38 EP: Status Conference Re−Resetting of the Trial Date and Scheduling Deadlines held on 7/22/2015. All Counsel to participate telephonically. New Dates will be given and a First Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order will be filed and issued.The following listed Court Hearing Dates are hereby listed−Settlement Conference−10/2/2015, Final PreTrial Conference−1/5/2016 and Jury Selection/Jury Trial to follow−2/2/2016 and all other Scheduling Deadlines as stated in the Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order [ECF No. 29].NEW DATES−Jury Selection/Trial to Follow−8/9/2016 @9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Kevin Chang, Final PreTrial Conference−6/28/2016 @9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Kevin Chang, Settlement Conference−5/12/2016 @10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Kevin Chang, File Dispositive Motions by 3/9/2016 and Discovery Deadline by 6/10/2016 (Court Reporter None.) (MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(lls, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 07/22/2015)
39 AMENDED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 7/23/2015. re: 38 . (afc)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 07/23/2015)
40 EO: Status Conference−Re Trial Date set for 3/31/2016 at 09:00 AM before MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. All Counsel to participate telephonically. Call Leslie Sai, Courtroom Manager at (808) 541−3089 to provide a telephone number that Counsel may be reached at. (MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(lls, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 03/29/2016)
41 EP: Status Conference Re−settlement held on 3/31/2016. All Counsel participated telephonically. Case has Settled. The Following Listed Dates are hereby vacated−Settlement Conference−5/12/2016, Final PreTrial Conference−6/29/2016 and Jury Selection/Trial to Follow−8/9/2016 and all other Scheduling Deadlines as stated in the Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order [ECF No. 39] Dismissal Documents are due by 4/25/2016. (Court Reporter None.) (MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(lls, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 04/01/2016)
42 EO: Joint Request by Counsel to extend the Dismissal Documents Due Date from 4/25/2016 to 5/9/2016 is hereby Granted. (MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(lls, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 04/25/2016)

Case: 1:13-cv-698 As of: 03/22/2018 11:33 AM HST 7 of 7
05/09/2016 43 CONSENT DECREE; ORDER. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 5/9/2016. (afc)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 05/09/2016)

 </s> U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE 12-18-13
EEOC Sues Maui County Police Department for Age Discrimination
45-Year-Old Qualified Candidate Denied Police Officer Position Due to Age, Federal Agency Says
HONOLULU, Hawaii - The County of Maui violated federal law when it refused to hire a qualified candidate as a police officer due to his age, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today in the state of Hawaii.
According to the EEOC's suit, Lars Sandstrom applied for the position of police officer in 2009, met all of the minimum qualifications for the position and passed the qualifying written exam. Sandstrom also had a bachelor's degree and extensive military and life experience which qualified him for the position. The EEOC contends that during the job interview, assumptions were made about Sandstrom's abilities given his age of 45 at the time, including the comment that, "I doubt someone your age could handle the stress of training." Sandstrom was thereafter not selected for the position. An EEOC investigation found that several other less qualified candidates were hired as police officers during the time in question. Nonetheless, Sandstrom was able to secure employment as a police officer at another police department.
Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC filed its suit against the County of Maui in U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (EEOC v. County of Maui Police Department, Case No. CV13-00698-LEK-KSC), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC's suit seeks back pay, benefits and liquidated damages for Sandstrom as well as injunctive relief intended to prevent further discrimination at the department.
"Older workers continue to face discrimination based on age due to negative stereotypes and inaccurate assumptions about their abilities," said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC's Los Angeles District, which includes Hawaii in its jurisdiction. "It is important for employers to ensure that such stereotyping does not impact a person's ability to be employed."
Timothy Riera, local director of the EEOC's Honolulu Local Office, said, "Age discrimination remains a problem, making up 23 percent of all EEOC charges filed in Hawaii and in the United States last year. It is important that employers not ignore the value that older workers can bring to their workforce."
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.


[CONTENT] December 2013 | EEOC | the County of Maui Police Department | District Court | the Age Discrimination | 1967 | ADEA | 29 | U.S.C. | § | § | 621 et seq ||| EEOC | the County of Maui Police Department ||| EEOC | 40) years of age ||| 2009 | the County of Maui Police Department ||| 90 |||  |||  |||  ||| January through October 2009 | at least 28 ||| May 6, 2016 | three-year | 24,000 ||| May 2016 [SUMMARY] In December 2013, the EEOC brought this suit against the County of Maui Police Department in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) (29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.). The EEOC alleged that the County of Maui Police Department did not hire a candidate because of his age (45). The EEOC asked for (a) a permanent injunction enjoining the police from engaging in any employment practices which resulted in discrimination on the basis of age; (b) an order that the police institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for persons forty (40) years of age and older; (c) an order that the police provide wages and benefits to the candidate; and (d) an order that the police provide rightful-place reinstatement with seniority restored or front pay. 

In 2009, the candidate applied to the County of Maui Police Department. He met all minimum qualifications for training and experience, and he passed the initial written civil service exam with a high score above 90 points. Then he was scheduled for an oral interview. During the interview, the panel made age-based remarks including "I doubt someone your age could handle the stress of training" in addition to whether he could perform the physical holds required due to his age, and whether someone his age could take directives from a younger person. They decided not to hire the candidate. During the hiring period of January through October 2009, at least 28 applicants were hired who were younger than the candidate and were less qualified for the position than the candidate on the basis of their education, experience and civil service written exam scores.

On May 6, 2016, the parties entered into a three-year consent decree that required the defendant to pay the charging party $24,000 in unclassified damages and required the defendant to modify its anti-discrimination policy, establish record-keeping procedures, improve its compliance efforts, provide anti-discrimination training to employees to prevent future discrimination including providing training to employees, and report to an independent monitor. There has been no activity on the docket since May 2016, and the case is thus presumed to be closed. 