Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 1 Filed 03/27/2003 Page 1 of 7

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

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC. )

)

Defendant.

)

)

)

/
------------------------------------~

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Inelia Pino-King, Stephanie C. Credit and any other similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater partiCUlarity in paragraphs 7 through 12 below, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that Ms. King, Ms. Credit and other similarly situated individuals were subjected to sexual harassment by Andrew Despota, a management official ofthe Defendant corporation. The conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. The Commission further alleges that as a result of the hostile environment, the conditions ofMs. King's and Ms. Credit's employment were so intolerable that they were forced to resign their positions.

/

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 1 Filed 03/27/2003 Page 2 of 7
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(t)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC" or the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement ofTitle VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(t)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. (the "Employer"), has continuously been a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Tampa, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70l(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
2

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 1 Filed 03/27/2003 Page 3 of 7
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Inelia Pino King and Stephanie C. Credit each filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least March, 2001, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Tampa, Florida, facilities, in violation ofSection 703(a) ofTitle VII and 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-2(a). 8. Inelia Pino King was subjected to sexual harassment by Area Manager Andrew Despota in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment.
a. The harassment included, but was not limited to, kissing, sexually offensive phone calls, sexually suggestive comments, and requests for a sexual relationship.
b. Defendant Employer is liable for the unlawful sexual harassment to which it subjected Ms. King during her employment.
9. On or about August or September, 2001, Ms. King was forced to resign her position as a Store Manager because the conditions ofher employment were so intolerable (as a result ofthe sexually offensive harassment that she was subjected to by Area Manager Despota) that a reasonable person subjected to the same or similar conduct would have been compelled to resign.
3

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 1 Filed 03/27/2003 Page 4 of 7

10. Stephanie C. Credit was subjected to sexual harassment by Area Manager Andrew

Despota in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work

environment. a.

The harassment included, but was not limited to, touching, sexually offensive

phone calls, sexually suggestive comments such as "I want to spank your

ass," and "do you shave your pussy". and requests for a sexual relationship. b. Defendant Employer is liable for the unlawful sexual harassment to which

they subjected Ms. Credit during her employment.

11. On or about January, 2002, Ms. Credit was forced to resign her position as a Store

Manager because the conditions of her employment were so intolerable (as a result of the sexually offensive harassment that she was subjected to by Area Manager Despota) that a reasonable person

subjected to the same or similar conduct would have been compelled to resign.

12. Other similarly situated female employees of the Defendant Employer were subjected to sexual harassment by Area Manager Andrew Despota in the form of unwelcome

physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to

constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. Defendant Employer is liable for the unlawful sexual harassment to which it subjected other similarly situated females during their employment.

13. The effect ofthe conduct complained of in paragraphs 7 through 12 above has been

to deprive Inelia Pino King, Stephanie C. Credit and other similarly situated individuals of equal

employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees on the basis of sex.

4

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 1 Filed 03/27/2003 Page 5 of 7
14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 through 12 above were intentional.
15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 through 12 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights ofInelia Pino King, Stephanie C. Credit and other similarly situated individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment, or any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all its employees regardless of sex, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Inelia Pino King, Stephanie C. Credit and any other similarly situated individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to, reinstatement, rightful place promotion, job search expenses and/or front pay. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Inelia Pino King, Stephanie C. Credit and any other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7 through 12 above including, but not limited to, medical expenses and out ofpocket losses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
j

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 1 Filed 03/27/2003 Page 6 of 7
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Inelia Pino King, Stephanie C. Credit and any other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7 through 12 above including, but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Inelia Pino King, Stephanie C. Credit and any other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7 through 12 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action. JURy TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint. Respectfully Submitted, NICHOLAS M. INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney MICHAEL FARRELL Supervisory Trial Attorney
6

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 1 Filed 03/27/2003 Page 7 of 7
Trial Att mey Florida Bar Number 0083054 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131-1805 Tel.: (305) 530-6006 or (305) 530-7100 Fax: (305) 536-4494
7

 </s> Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 12 Filed 09/16/2003 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIomo

TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT TAMPA. FLORIDA

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case No. 8:03-cv-568-T-24MAP

CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.,

Defendant. ______________________________~I

ORDER
This cause comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint or in the Alternative to Stay This Action (Doc. No.7). Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. No.9).
Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not conciliate in good faith with the Defendant prior to filing this action as required by 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(b) and (1)(1). After careful review of the motion and the response, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs actions were well within the requirements of both 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(b) and (1)(1) and the controlling case law articulated in EEOC v. Klingler Electric Com., 636 F.2d 104, 107 (5th Cir. 1981):
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint or in the Alternative to Stay This Action (Doc. No.7) is DENIED.

IThe case law of the Fifth Circuit prior to September 30, 1981 has been adopted as precedent in this judicial circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane).
)2

.----- ----------------------------------------------------------
Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 12 Filed 09/16/2003 Page 2 of 4
~
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this , :> day of September, 2003.

Copies to: Counsel of Record

SUSAN C. BUCKLEW United States District Judge

-2-

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 12 Filed 09/16/2003 Page 3 of 4

Date Printed: 09/17/2003

F I L E COP Y

Notice sent to:
Kenneth Lawrence Gillespie, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 rm
Nicholas M. Inzeo, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 rm
Gwendolyn Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 rm
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 rm
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 rm
James Addison Martin Jr., Esq. Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen 625 Court St., Suite 200 P.O. Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757-1669

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 12

8:03-cv-0~8

rm

Filed 09/16/2003

Andrew Kenyon MacFarlane, Esq. Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen 400 N. Tampa St., Suite 2300
P.O. Box 1531 Tampa, FL 33601-1531

8:03-cv-00568 rm

Brendan M. Lee, Esq. MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen
P.o. Box 1531
Tampa, FL 33601

8:03-cv-00568 rm

Matthew K. Fenton, Esq. Wenzel & Fenton 633 N. Franklin St., Suite 500 Tampa, FL 33602

8:03-cv-00568 rm

Page 4 of 4

 </s> -

-~-------

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 13

Filed 09/24/2003 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPADMSION
STEPHANIE P. CREDIT,

~ILED
4i
03SEP 24 PH I: 24

Plaintiff,

v.

CASE NO.: 8:03-cv-568-T-24MAP

CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.

Defendant.
--------------------------------I
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF STEPHANIE P. CREDIT
STEPHANIE P. CREDIT files this Complaint against CHECKERS DRIVE-IN

RESTAURANTS, INC. and states:

PARTIES 1. At all relevant times, Defendant, Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. ("Checkers"),

has continuously been a Delaware Corporation doing business in the State of Florida in the city of Tampa, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. Checkers is an "Employer" as defined by

Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. 2. At all relevant times, Ms. Credit has been a citizen ofthe State ofFlorida and resident
of Hillsborough County Florida. She is a former employee of Checkers and is an "employee" as

defined by Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.

3. lurisdictionofthis Court is invoked under 28 U.S.c. §1331, 1332, 1343, 1367,2201, and 2202; Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.; and the Florida Civil
Rights Act of 1992. Diversity jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c. §1332 exists because Credit and

/3

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 13 Filed 09/24/2003 Page 2 of 4
Defendant are citizens ofdifferent states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs.
COUNT I: TITLE VII CLAIMS 4. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations stated at ~~6-15 of the Complaint filed by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Case No.: 8:03-cv-568-T29MN, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. 5. As a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered humiliation, suffering, mental anguish, pain, anxiety, embarrassment, inconvenience and loss of income. 6. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing suit. 7. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorneys and agreed to pay them a fee. WHEREFORE, Ms. Credit prays for the following relief: (a) a jury trial on all issues; (b) judgement against Checkers and for Ms. Credit awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages against Checkers for Checkers' violations oflaw enumerated herein; (c) judgement against Checkers and for the Plaintiff permanently enjoining Checkers from future violations oflaw enumerated herein and remedying all lost income, raises, promotions, and other benefits of which Plaintiff was unlawfully deprived; (d) reinstatement of Ms. Credit to a position comparable to a position she should have held at Checkers absent the unlawful discrimination enumerated herein or, in the alternative, front pay; (e) prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained;
2

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 13 Filed 09/24/2003 Page 3 of 4
(f) judgment against Checkers and for Ms. Credit awarding her attorneys' fees and costs; and
(g) such further relief as is equitable and just. COUNT D: FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT CLAIMS
8. Plaintiffincorporates by reference the allegations stated at~~6-15 ofthe United States Equal Employment OpportunityComrnission's Complaint in Case No.: 8:03-cv-568-T-29MN, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
9. The practices complained of at ~~7-1l, and 13-15 constitute unlawful sex discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
10. As a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered humiliation, suffering, mental anguish, pain, anxiety, embarrassment, inconvenience and loss of income.
11. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to bringing suit. 12. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorneys and agreed to pay them a fee. WHEREFORE, Ms. Credit prays for the following relief: (a) a jury trial on all issues; (b) judgement against Checkers and for Ms. Credit awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages against Checkers for Checkers' violations of law enumerated herein; (c) judgement against Checkers and for the Plaintiff permanently enjoining Checkers from future violations oflaw enumerated herein and remedying all lost income, raises, promotions, and other benefits of which Plaintiffs were unlawfully deprived;
3

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 13 Filed 09/24/2003 Page 4 of 4
(d) reinstatement of Ms. Credit to a position comparable to a position she should have held at Checkers absent the unlawful discrimination enumerated herein or, in the alternative, front pay;
(e) prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained; (f) judgment against Checkers and for Ms. Credit awarding her attorneys' fees and costs; and (g) such further relief as is equitable and just.
Respectfully submitted,
MATTHEW K. NTON, ESQUIRE Florida Bar Number: 0002089 Wenzel & Fenton, P.A. 633 North Franklin Street, Suite 500 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 224-0431 Telephone (813) 229-8712 Facsimile
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy ofthe foregoing has been furnished by U.S. mail to James A. Martin, Esquire, MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, P.O. Box 1669, Clearwater, FL 33757 this Mday of September, 2003.
MATT WK.FENTON,ESQUIRE
4

 </s> Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 19 Filed 11/10/2003 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

NOFV 1I0L20E03 [(lj\J)~

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Date

Tlaw

u.s. CLEP..K.

t:!~':~~CT COt:'~T

MJI)I)LL if,,~ .. :'.... c·; 0 .." t L G-P.:IDA

TMAPA, F'LO:~LDA

Plaintiff,
v.

1).)-1 MA P
CASE NO.: 8:03-cv-568-T-2~MN'

CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.

Defendant.
------------------------------./
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF STEPHANIE P. CREDIT AND INELIA PINO-KING

Intervenors, STEPHANIE P. CREDIT and INELIA PINO-KING, by and through

undersigned counsel, file this Complaint as Parties-Plaintiff, as authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), is the agency of

the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.

2. At all relevant times, Defendant, Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. ("Checkers"),

has continuously been a Delaware Corporation doing business in the State of Florida in the city of

Tampa, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. Checkers is an "Employer" as defined by

Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.

3. At all relevant times, both Ms. Credit and Ms. Pino-King have been citizens of the
11 State of Florida and residents of Hillsborough County Florida. They are both former employees of
Checkers and are "employees" as defined by Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 19 Filed 11/10/2003 Page 2 of 5
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. 5. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1331, 1332, 1343, 1367,2201, and 2202; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. §2000e et seq.; and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332 exists because Intervenors and Defendant are citizens ofdifferent states and the amount in controversy as to each Intervenor exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs.
COUNT I: TITLE VB CLAIMS 6. Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations stated at~~6-15 ofthe Complaint filed by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 7. As a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Intervenors have suffered humiliation, suffering, mental anguish, pain, anxiety, embarrassment, inconvenience and loss of income. 8. Intervenors have complied with all conditions precedent to bringing suit. 9. Intervenors have retained the undersigned attorneys and agreed to pay them a fee.
WHEREFORE, Ms. Credit and Ms. Pino-King pray for the following relief:
(a) a jury trial on all issues; (b) judgement against Checkers and for Ms. Credit and Ms. Pino-King awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages against Checkers for Checkers' violations of law enumerated herein;
2

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 19 Filed 11/10/2003 Page 3 of 5
(c) judgement against Checkers and for the Plaintiffs permanently enjoining Checkers from future violations oflaw enumerated herein and remedying all lost income, raises, promotions, and other benefits of which Plaintiffs were unlawfully deprived;
(d) reinstatement ofMs. Credit and Ms. Pino-King to a position comparable to a position they should have held at Checkers absent the unlawful discrimination enumerated herein or, in the alternative, front pay;
(e) prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained; (f) judgment against Checkers and for Ms. Credit and Ms. Pino-King awarding their attorneys' fees and costs; and (g) such further relief as is equitable and just.
COUNT II: FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT CLAIMS 10. Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations stated at ,,6-15 of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Complaint. 11. The practices complained of at "7-11, and 13-15 constitute unlawful sex discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. 12. As a result ofDefendant's unlawful conduct, Intervenors have suffered humiliation, suffering, mental anguish, pain, anxiety, embarrassment, inconvenience and loss of income. 13. Intervenors have complied with all conditions precedent to bringing suit. 14. Intervenors have retained the undersigned attorneys and agreed to pay them a fee.
3

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 19 Filed 11/10/2003 Page 4 of 5
WHEREFORE, Ms. Credit and Ms. Pino-King pray for the following relief: (a) a jury trial on all issues; (b) judgement against Checkers and for Ms. Credit and Ms. Pino-King awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages against Checkers for Checkers' violations of law enumerated herein; (c) judgement against Checkers and for the Plaintiffs pennanently enjoining Checkers from future violations oflaw enumerated herein and remedying all lost income, raises, promotions, and other benefits of which Plaintiffs were unlawfully deprived; (d) reinstatement ofMs. Credit and Ms. Pino-King to a position comparable to a position they should have held at Checkers absent the unlawful discrimination enumerated herein or, in the alternative, front pay; (e) prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained; (f) judgment against Checkers and for Ms. Credit and Ms. Pino-King awarding their attorneys' fees and costs; and (g) such further relief as is equitable and just.
Respectfully submitted,
NTON, ESQUIRE Florida Bar Number: 0002089 Wenzel & Fenton, P.A. 633 North Franklin Street, Suite 500 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 224-0431 Telephone (813) 229-8712 Facsimile
4

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 19 Filed 11/10/2003 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. mail to James A. Martin, Esquire, MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, P.O. Box 1669, Clearwater, FL33757 and Kenneth L. Gillespie, Esquire, EEOC, One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700, Two South
q Biscayne Blvd., Miami, FL 33131-1805 this day of May, 2003.
5

 </s> Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 28 Filed 01/26/2004 Page 1 of 5

F~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

04 JAN 26 P,'1 r= 07

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al.,
Plaintiffs, -vsCHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.,
Defendant. ______________________________~I

Case No. 8:03-cv-568-T-24MAP

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Intervention of Stephanie P. Credit (Doc. No. 15) and Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Intervention of Inelia Pino-King (Doc. No. 22). Plaintiff Stephanie Credit filed a Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Intervention of Stephanie P. Credit (Doc. No. 16). Plaintiff Inelia Pino-King filed a Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Intervention ofInelia Pino-King (Doc. No. 23).
Defendant moves this Court to dismiss the intervening Plaintiffs' Title VII claims as time-barred. In the event the EEOC chooses to file suit under Title VII as in the case at bar, a charging party may not bring a lawsuit to redress the alleged discrimination. However, a charging party has an absolute right to intervene in the EEOC's suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)(1). Defendant argues that although Plaintiffs must intervene in this action brought by the EEOC and may not bring their own lawsuits, ~ Title VII claims should be dismissed because the underlying EEOC action is invalid as a ~ oflaw. Specifically, Defendant contends that

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 28 Filed 01/26/2004 Page 2 of 5
the EEOC's "Notice of Revocation" of the Right to Sue Notice was ineffective due to the fact that it was not authorized by any statute or regulation governing the EEOC.
Defendant's motions to dismiss are properly considered as motions for summary judgment because they require the Court to consider affidavits and other documents outside of the four comers of the complaint. See Garciay. Co.penhaver, Bell & Assocs., M.D.'s, P.A., 104 F.3d 1256, 1266 n.ll (lIth Cir. 1997). Althouah the Court would normally give ten days notice to all the parties that it was converting the motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment, the Court is foregoing the notice because it is ultimately finding in favor of the intervening Plaintiffs, and Defendant was aware that the Court would consider matters outside the record. See id.; Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 22 at p.5 n.1).
The Court finds Defendant's contenti~tthat the Title VII claims should be dismissed
! .
based on the EEOC's allegedly invalid Noti~ of Revocation to be meritless. "Neither statutory
'('
nor regulatory language prevents the EEOC's from correcting a clerical error." Puscar v. Hale Prods., Inc., No. Civ. A. 96-CV-8442, 1997 WL 570914, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 5, 1997). In addition, this Court will not visit the effects afthe EEOC's allegedly erroneous practice on the intervening Plaintiffs. See,~, Zambuto v. American Tel. & TeL Co., 544 F.2d 1333, 1336 (5th Cir. 1977).1
Defendant has not cited any authority which specifically holds that a notice of intent to reconsider and actual reconsideration is required when the EEOC finds reasonable cause to believe that violations of Title VII have occUl'l'Od, inadvertently sends a Notice of Right to Sue,
cat IThe case law of the Fifth Circuit prJor to September 30, 1981 has been adopted as
precedent in this judicial circuit. Bonner v. of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981 ) (en bane)."
-2-

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 28 Filed 01/26/2004 Page 3 of 5
then revokes the Notice of Right to Sue to pursue the litigation itself. The case law cited by Defendant is not on point and inapplicable to the facts of this case. Further, assuming but not deciding that EEOC failed to abide by its procedures. this would be a sufficient reason to
equitably toll the 90-day period Defendant claims had elapsed prior to the intervening Plaintiffs
filing their intervening complaints. See Puscar, 1997 WL 570914, at *2. Accordingly, the Court finds that the intervening Plaintiffs' Title VII claims are not time barred, and the Defendant's motions to dismiss should be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: (1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Intervention of Stephanie P.
Credit (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED.
(2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Intervention of Inelia Pino-King
(Doc. No. 22) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this UK day of January, 2004.
.?;UL- c~v~)
SUSAN C. BUCKLEW United States District Judge Copies to: Counsel of Record
·3·

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 28 Filed 01/26/2004 Page 4 of 5

Date Printed: 01/26/2004

F I L E COP Y

Notice sent to:
Nicholas M. Inzeo, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
Gwendolyn Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
Delner Franklin-Thomas,Ssq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
Eric Dreiband, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
James Lee, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700

Case 8:03M-civa-m00i,568F-ISCB3-3M1A3P1 Document 28
,-.-
8:03-cv-00568 mrh

Filed 01/26/2004
~.

John C. Weaver, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131

8:03-cv-00568 mrh

James Addison Martin Jr., Esq. Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen 625 Court St., Suite 200 P.O. Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757-1669

8:03-cv-00568 mrh

Andrew Kenyon MacFarlane, Esq. Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen 400 N. Tampa St., Suite 2300 P.O. Box 1531
Tampa, FL 33601-1531

8:03-cv-00568 mrh

Brendan M. Lee, Esq. MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen P.O. Box 1531
Tampa, FL 33601

8:03-cv-00568 mrh

Matthew K. Fenton, Esq. Wenzel & Fenton
633 N. Franklin St., Suite 500
Tampa, FL 33602

8:03-cv-00568 mrh

Page 5 of 5

 </s> Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 54 Filed 06/02/2004 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al.,

.. : -',; 'r-

' I " '- _" j

"

,-. ,\,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO.: 8:03-CV-568-T-24MAP

CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.,

Defendants.
-----------------------------------/
ORDER

Inelia Pino-King and Stephanie Credit, the intervening Plaintiffs, are suing their

former employer under Title VII and Florida I s Civil Rights Act claiming their area

manager subjected them to intolerable sexual harassment. Each demands damages for

"humiliation, suffering, mental anguish, pain, anxiety, embarrassment, inconvenience, and

loss of income." See doc. 19. Faced with these allegations, Checkers moves to compel

they answer certain interrogatories (#s 3 and 11) and requests for production (# 24) about

their medical and mental health treatment for the past ten years (doc. 49). Both object.

Although both say they have not sought psychological counseling for any reason, and

therefore have no information to give in that regard, each argues Checkers I s demands are

overbroad, not relevant to a claim or defense, and entail privileged information (doc. 52).

After consideration, I fmd most of Checkers I s demands are moot and the rest are

overbroad and irrelevant to the claims and defenses raised in the lawsuit.

A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 54 Filed 06/02/2004 Page 2 of 5
A. Discussion Because this is a federal question case, federal common law governs the privilege inquiry. See Fed. R. Evid. 501; Hancock v. Hobbs, 967 F.2d 462,466-67 (lith Cir. 1992) (federal common law governs despite court's supplementary jurisdiction over the state law claim). Applying these principles, no physician-patient privilege exists under federal common law. See, e.g., Northwestern Mem. Hasp. v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 923, 926 (7th Cir. 2004). And, while federal courts recognize a psychotherapist-patient privilege, see Jaffe v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), Checkers' discovery demand for this information is moot because the Plaintiffs say they never sought such treatment. In short, the two have nothing to give Checkers. Consequently, the only issue remaining is whether Checkers has demonstrated the general medical information it seeks from the Plaintiffs is relevant to any claim or defense of any party in the pending action. Fed. R. Civ. 26(b)(l). None of the records Checkers seeks, particularly from the broad sweep it makes, has any relevancy to any claim Plaintiffs make. Neither Plaintiff sought medical treatment arising from any claim leveled against Checkers. And neither is seeking any compensation for any medical treatment. To the extent Plaintiff Pino-King sought medical treatment for a pre-existing condition (injuries from a car accident) that may have been exacerbated by the offending harassment, she has already provided Checkers the name of the physician who treated her during that period. Thus, the demand for that information is moot. See Doe v. City of Chula Vista, 196 F.R.D. 562, 569 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (finding that defendants' interrogatories and subpoenas were overbroad and that "Doe's claim for emotional damages does not entitle defendants to invade the whole of Doe's medical
2
A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 54 Filed 06/02/2004 Page 3 of 5

history"). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. Defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. 's Motion to Compel (doc. 49)

is DENIED.

'~ay j. ~ DONE and ORDERED at Tampa, Florida on this / --

of "

2004.

cc: Counsel of Record

MARK A. PIZZO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3
A072A (Rev.S/82)

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 54 Filed 06/02/2004 Page 4 of 5

Date Printed: 06/03/2004

F I L E COP Y

Notice sent to:
Nicholas M. Inzeo, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
Gwendolyn Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
Eric Dreiband, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
James Lee, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700

Case 8:03M-civa-m00i5, 68F-LSCB3-3M1A3P1 Document 54 Filed 06/02/2004
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
John C. Weaver, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
James Addison Martin Jr., Esq. Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen 625 Court St., Suite 200 P.O. Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757-1669
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
Andrew Kenyon MacFarlane, Esq. Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen 400 N. Tampa St., Suite 2300 P.O. Box 1531 Tampa, FL 33601-1531
8:03-cv-00568 mrh
Brendan M. Lee, Esq. MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen P.O. Box 1531 Tampa, FL 33601
B:03-cv-00568 mrh
Matthew K. Fenton, Esq. Wenzel & Fenton 633 N. Franklin St., Suite 500 Tampa, FL 33602
8:03-cv-00568 mrh

Page 5 of 5

 </s> Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 71 Filed 10/15/2004 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO.: 8:03-CV-568-T-24MAP

CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.,

Defendants. __________________________________________/

ORDER

Stephanie Credit, intervening Plaintiff, seeks to depose Lisa Despota, the wife of her

alleged harasser. Defendant filed the instant motion for protective order, asserting that Mrs.

Despota has “virtually no relevant information regarding Plaintiff’s claims,” that her

testimony is sought “only for the purpose of embarrassment, harassment and annoyance,”

and any conversations between Mr. and Mrs. Despota are confidential under the marital

communications privilege. The Intervenor Plaintiff maintains Mr. Despota waived any

applicable marital communications privilege during his deposition and in conversations with

Ms. Credit and that Mrs. Despota’s testimony is needed to impeach Mr. Despota’s testimony.

After consideration, I find the Defendant’s motion should be granted.

Before turning to the discovery issue, the Intervenor Plaintiff argues that the

Defendant lacks standing to seek entry of a protective order on behalf of Mrs. Despota, a

non-party. I find, however, that Checkers has standing to seek a protective order since Rule

26(c) allows either a party or the person from whom discovery is sought to seek a protective

order. Other federal courts facing similar objections have interpreted the rule’s language to

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 71 Filed 10/15/2004 Page 2 of 3
allow a party to seek entry of a protective order on a non-party’s behalf. See generally United States v. Operation Rescue, 112 F.Supp.2d 696, 704 (S.D. Ohio 1999); Fleet Business Credit Corp. v. Hill City Oil Company, Inc., 2002 WL 1483879, *2 (W.D. Tenn. 2002).
Without reaching the issue of the applicability of the marital communications privilege and whether the privilege is waived, I find that deposing Mrs. Despota runs afoul of the relevancy standard set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). In 2000, the rule was amended to limit discovery to matters relevant to the claim or defense of any party. The prior version of the rule permitted discovery into the subject matter of a claim or defense. Despite this change, the 2000 rule instructed courts that they retained authority to order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action upon a showing of good cause. For example, the advisory committee note states that “information that could be used to impeach a likely witness, although not otherwise relevant to the claims or defenses might be properly discoverable.” Importantly, the amendment is designed to involve the court more actively in regulating the breadth of sweeping or contentious discovery, and the determination of whether a particular discovery request is appropriate is left to the court after considering the circumstances of the pending action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, Advisory Committee Notes (2004). Against Rule 26's standards, the Intervenor Plaintiff has not shown Mrs. Despota has information relevant to the claims or defenses presented here. Nor has the Intervenor Plaintiff shown good cause for the discovery. The impeachment evidence, if it qualifies as such, is only remotely relevant to the issues in this action and any relevance is likely objectionable under Fed.R.Evid. 403.
2

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 71 Filed 10/15/2004 Page 3 of 3
Further, while Rule 26(c) articulates a single standard for ruling on a motion for a protective order, federal courts have superimposed a somewhat more demanding balancing of the interests approach to the rule whereby a district court balances the movant’s interest in obtaining the information sought against the opposing party’s interest in withholding the information. Farnsworth v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985). This court must balance the non-party’s legitimate interest in privacy against the Intervenor Plaintiff’s need to inquire into the non-party’s sexual conduct with her husband in hopes of obtaining information she may use to impeach Mr. Despota. In doing so I conclude that Mrs. Despota’s interest in maintaining privacy outweighs the Intervenor Plaintiff’s interest in invading it.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (doc. 69) is GRANTED. 2. The deposition of Mrs. Despota shall be cancelled for the reasons set forth in this Order. DONE and ORDERED at Tampa, Florida on October 15, 2004.

 </s> Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 78 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO.: 8:03-CV-568-T-24MAP

CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.,

Defendants. __________________________________________/

ORDER

Stephanie Credit, the remaining intervening Plaintiff, seeks entry of an order

compelling Defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. to respond to several requests for

production and interrogatories (doc. 72). Checkers opposes the motion (doc. 74). For the

reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

1. Mark Springston’s personnel file and related information

Credit’s first and second request for production and first interrogatory seek

documents and information related to supervisor Mark Springston’s employment and

termination. Specifically, Credit seeks Springston’s personnel file, all documents reflecting

the reasons Springston was terminated, and a statement of every reason Springston is no

longer employed at Checkers, including whether he violated any policies and names of

person(s) who decided to terminate his employment. Credit asserts that the documents and

information are relevant because Springston refused to relay to upper management her

complaints of sexual harassment by Checkers manager Andrew Despota, despite Checkers’

internal policy requiring Springston to do so. She asserts the information is relevant because

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 78 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 2 of 4
Springston denies she reported harassment to him. Credit further asserts that Despota, Area Manager over Springston, testified he terminated Springston but refused to tell the basis for termination. Several other witnesses testified that Springston was fired for stealing from Checkers, and Springston himself apparently testified that he resigned voluntarily after borrowing money from Checkers’ safe. Credit argues that Despota’s decision not to report Springston’s theft to law enforcement, despite Checkers’ policy requiring him to do so, demonstrates favoritism toward Springston and suggests Springston may have reciprocated by testifying that Credit did not complain to him about harassment by Despota. Against this backdrop, Credit says information related to Springston’s employment and termination relate to his bias and untruthfulness. Checkers objects to production on the ground that Springston’s personnel file is confidential and the requested information is unrelated to the Plaintiff’s claims.
Though Rule 26(b) limits discovery to any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, the rule’s Advisory Committee Notes states that “information that could be used to impeach a likely witness, although not otherwise relevant to the claims or defenses, might be properly discoverable. See Advisory Committee Notes to the 2000 Amendments to Rule 26. Balancing Credit’s interest in discovering impeachment information against Checkers’ and Springston’s privacy interests, I find that only those portions of Springston’s personnel file concerning the reason(s) for and circumstances surrounding his termination or resignation or any matters concerning Credit are discoverable. The remainder of Springston’s personnel file need not be produced. Consequently, Checkers is to answer request for production two and interrogatory one as
2

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 78 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 3 of 4
limited herein. 2. Credit’s demotion or termination Credit’s second interrogatory asked for after-acquired evidence that would have
supported a decision to demote or terminate her employment. Though Checkers responded that it had discovered Credit’s dishonesty regarding the reasons she left her employment at Starbucks in Illinois and her criminal history involving one or more crimes for financial dishonesty, Credit seeks to compel Checkers to identify and produce all documents supporting its after-acquired defense. Upon consideration, I find that since the request was an interrogatory, document production is unnecessary. See Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2163 (“Copies of documents and tangible things must be obtained by Rule 34 rather than requesting them in connection with interrogatories.”).
3. Resume fraud Request for production eleven seeks production of documents reflecting termination of any Checkers employees for resume fraud. Credit asserts such information is relevant since Checkers is likely to rely on the after-acquired evidence defense that it would have terminated Credit’s employment after discovering her resume fraud. Checkers objects to production, arguing the request is overly burdensome since it was not limited by time or geographic scope and an invasion of privacy to non-parties. Upon consideration, I find that Checkers should produce the names and last known addresses of all former Checkers managerial employees working at restaurants within Despota’s geographic area who were terminated for resume fraud after January 1, 2002.
3

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 78 Filed 12/03/2004 Page 4 of 4
ORDERED: 1. Intervenor Stephanie Credit’s Motion to Compel (doc. 72) is GRANTED in part, and DENIED as outlined above. DONE and ORDERED at Tampa, Florida on this 3rd day of December, 2004.

 </s> Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 86 Filed 02/14/2005 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case No. 8:03-cv-568-T-24MAP

CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. No. 75). Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 80).

Defendant argues that summary judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant because

of the EEOC’s failure to make a bona fide effort to conciliate this case in a reasonable and

responsive manner prior to filing this action as required by 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(b) and (f)(1). The

Court notes that it previously addressed this precise issue when considering Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss Complaint. See Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 12).

After careful review of the summary judgment motion and the response thereto, the Court

again finds that the EEOC’s actions were well within the requirements of both 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-

5(b) and (f)(1) and the controlling case law articulated in EEOC v. Klingler Electric Corp., 636 F.2d 104, 107 (5th Cir. 1981)1 and EEOC v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2003).

1The case law of the Fifth Circuit prior to September 30, 1981 has been adopted as precedent in this judicial circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 86 Filed 02/14/2005 Page 2 of 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 75) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 14th day of February, 2005.
Copies to: Counsel of Record
-2-

 </s> Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 95 Filed 03/09/2005 Page 1 of 7

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

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. B:03.CIV -568- T-24MAP

CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.,
Defendant. I

CONSENT DECREE 1. This Consent Decree ("Decree") is made and enteredinto by and between Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission" or

"EEOC"), and Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant," or

"Checkers"). The Commission and Checkers are collectively referredto herein as "the Parties." 2. On March 27,2003, EEOC initiatedthis action againstCheckersunder TitleVIIof the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct alleged unlawful

employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Stephanie C. Credit.

EEOC alleges that Ms. Credit was subjectedto sexualharassmentby AndrewDepsota,a management

official of Checkers. The Commission allegesthat the c,~nductwas sufficiently severeand pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment, and that as a result of the

hostile work environment, the conditions of Ms. Credit's employment were so intolerable that she

was forced to resign her position. On May 9, 2003, Ms. Credit intervenedin this action and brought claims of discrimination based on her sex and constructivedischargeunder TitleVII,as well as under

42 US.C. §1981 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 95 Filed 03/09/2005 Page 2 of 7

3. Defendant denies the allegations brought by the EEOC, Plaintiff-Intervenor and the

allegations in the Complaint filed in this civil action and makes no admission ofliability by entering into this Consent Decree.

4.

In the interest of resolving this matter to avoid the cost oflitigation, and as a result of

having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action

should be finally resolved by the entry ofthis Decree. This Decree is final and binding on the Parties, their successors and assigns.
5. The Parties agree that this Decree resolves all claims against Checkers alleged in EEOC Charge Number 151 A2 00861 and the Complaints filed in this action. The Parties further

agree that this Decree does not resolve any charges of discrimination that may be pending with the EEOC other than the charges referred to in this paragraph.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the pleadings filed by the Parties, it is hereupon:
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: JURISDICTION
6. This Court has jurisdiction of the subjectmatter of this action and over the Parties for

the purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree. 7. No party shall contest thejurisdiction of this federal court to enforce this Decree and

its terms or the right of the EEOC to seek enforcementof the Decree in the event Defendantbreaches

any of the terms of this Decree.

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 95 Filed 03/09/2005 Page 3 of 7
GENERAL INJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS 8. Checkers, its officers, managers, employees, agents and partners, are hereby enjoined from engaging in conduct which violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by adversely affecting the terms and conditions of any individual's employment by subjecting the employee to a hostile work environment on the basis sex. 9. Checkers, its officers, managers,agentsand partners,agreethat it willnot discriminate against any employee in this matter who opposed any of Defendant's practices which the employee believed to be a violation of Title VII; who filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violation(s) of such statute; or who cooperatedwith the EEOC in the investigation or prosecution of this case.
TRAINING 10. Checkers has established a written policy of compliance with Title VII which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A complete copy of this policy will be distributed to all its current employees who are employed at its facilities in Hillsborough County, Pinellas County and Pasco County, Florida on or before March 31, 2005. Checkers further agrees that all new employees employed at its facilities in Hillsborough County, Pinellas County and Pasco County,Florida will be provided a copy of the policy within one week of employment.
11. In order to further ensure the effective implementation of Defendant's antidiscrimination policies, Checkers will conduct a one (1) day annualtraining throughoutthe duration of this Decree for all of its managers and supervisory personnel employed at its facilities in Hillsborough County, PinelIas County and Pasco County, with specific emphasis on recognizing sexual harassment and the proper procedure to be followed if they become aware of sexual harassment in the workplace and/or if they receive a complaint of such discrimination. Defendant agrees to provide the EEOC with at least two (2) weeks notice before it conducts its training

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 95 Filed 03/09/2005 Page 4 of 7
session(s), with the date(s) and location(s) of the training,the identificationof thetrainingmaterialsto be used at the training session, and the name andj ob title of the employeeswho will be in attendance at the training. The training will be conducted by the DuganFry of Checkers TrainingDepartmentin conjunction with representatives of Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. EEOC may, at its discretion, be in attendance at the training.
12. Defendant agrees that the training describedin paragraph 11shallbe conductedwithin five months of the entry oftrus Decree, and, shouldthereafter take place by June 30th annuallyfor the duration of this Decree. Defendant further agrees thatthe training described in paragraph 11shall be given to all new managers and supervisors employedat its facilities in Hillsborough County,Pinellas County and Pasco County, who did not attend the annual training, within thirty (30) days of being placed in a management or supervisory position.
POSTING 13. The Defendant will post within seven (7) days from the Court's execution of this Decree, a laminated II" x 14IIsized copy of the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit B. Said poster shall be posted at the restaurants located in in Hillsborough County,Pinellas County and Pasco Countyfor the duration of this Decree in conspicuous locations accessible to all employees (i.e. employee bulletin board or lunch room).
MONITORING 14. The Defendant will retain all employmentrecordsrelatingin anywayto anycomplaint made to a supervisor, manager or human resource officer and to any investigation of sexual harassment at any of Defendant's facilities in Hillsborough County, Pinellas County and Pasco County, Florida for the duration of this Consent Decree and as required by federal law. 15. The Defendant will provide the EEOC every six (6) monthswith the name, last known address and last known phone number of any person employed at its facilities in Hillsborough County)

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 95 Filed 03/09/2005 Page 5 of 7

Pinellas County and Pasco County, who has complained to his or her Manager/Supervisor, Human Resources Department, or the President that he or she has been subjectedto sexual harassment while

working at any of the restaurants in Hillsborough County, Pinellas Countyand Pasco County during the preceding six (6) months. Checkers will also state its actions taken in response to each such

allegation. The first report shall be submittedno later than June 30, 2005, and thereafter by June 30th

and December 315t annually, throughout the duration of this Decree. The Defendant will provide

upon request by the Commission any and all documentation associated with each such complaint. 16. Defendant will certify to the EEOC every six (6) months throughout the duration of

this Decree that it is in compliance with all aspects of this Decree. The first such certification will be

due no later than June 30, 2005, and thereafterby June 30th,and December 315lannually,throughout the duration of this Decree.

MONETARY RELIEF 17. Checkers has paid monetaryrelief in orderto resolvethis case in an amount acceptable

to Plaintifflntervenor, EEOC and Defendant. The EEOC may disclose the monetary amount paid to

resolve this case as it deems appropriate.

ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE

18. The Commission shall have independent authority to seek the judicial enforcement

of any aspect, term or provision of this Decree.

COSTS

19. Each Party shall bear its own costs associated with this litigation.

DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE

20. decree.

The duration of this Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of entry of this

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 95 Filed 03/09/2005 Page 6 of 7
- SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this day of March, 2005.
SUSAN C. BUCKLEW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP Document 95 Filed 03/09/2005 Page 7 of 7
AGREED TO: FOR THE PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

by: ~~~

~()~1/VV:t.

Delner Franklin-Thomas

I Date: 3 J q Dfj

Regional Attorney

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Miami District Office

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700

2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 530-6001 Facsimile: (305) 536-4494

AGREED TO: FOR THE DEFENDANT CHECKERS DRlVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.

by: Jam

rzc#~Jr., Esq

Date: '3/.3/2I .Oo.s-

~,! Je ey ¥In, Esq.
M CFA ANE, FERGUSON & MCMULLEN

625 Court Street, Suite 200

Clearwater, Florida 33756

Telephone: (727) 441-8966

Facsimile: (727) 442-8470

 </s> Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592281573078254-L_3...
CLOSED, MAP
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP

EEOC v. Checkers Drive-In Assigned to: Judge Susan C Bucklew Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Date Filed: 03/27/2003 Date Terminated: 03/10/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Delner Franklin-Thomas Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Suite 2700 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6001 Email: delner.franklin-thomas@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric Dreiband Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gwendolyn Y. Reams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Lee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

1 of 12

8/14/2007 1:47 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592281573078254-L_3...
Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Weaver Equal Employment Opportunity Commission One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/536-7247 Email: john.weaver@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 02/17/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth Lawrence Gillespie Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6010 Email: kenneth.gillespie@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 11/20/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Farrell Jill S. Schwartz & Associates, PA Suite 200 180 Park Ave N Winter Park, FL 32789 407/647-8911 Fax: 407/628-4994 Email: mfarrell@schwartzlawfirm.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas M. Inzeo Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700

2 of 12

8/14/2007 1:47 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592281573078254-L_3...

Intervenor Plaintiff Stephanie P. Credit
Intervenor Plaintiff Inelia Pino-King TERMINATED: 02/08/2005
V. Defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.

Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer N. Brown Equal Employment Opportunity Commission One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6012 Fax: 3055364494 Email: jennifer.brown@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John C. Weaver (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/17/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew K. Fenton Wenzel & Fenton 633 N. Franklin St., Suite 500 Tampa, FL 33602 813/224-0431 Fax: 813/229-8712 Email: mfenton@wenzelfenton.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew K. Fenton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Kenyon MacFarlane MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, PA 201 N Franklin St - Ste 2000 PO Box 1531 Tampa, FL 33601-1531 813/273-4200 Fax: 813/273-4396

3 of 12

8/14/2007 1:47 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592281573078254-L_3...

Defendant Albertson's
Mediator Cary R. Singletary
Intervenor Defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.

Email: akm@macfar.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M. Lee MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen P.O. Box 1531 One Tampa City Center, Ste. 2000 Tampa, FL 33601 813/273-4200 Fax: 813/273-4396 Email: bml@macfar.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James A. Martin, Jr. MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, PA 625 Court St - Ste 200 PO Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 727/441-8966 Fax: 727/442-8470 Email: jam@clw.macfar.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey W. Gibson MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, PA 625 Court St - Ste 200 PO Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 727/441-8966 Fax: 727/442-8470 Email: jg@clw.macfar.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Kenyon MacFarlane (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M. Lee (See above for address)

4 of 12

8/14/2007 1:47 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592281573078254-L_3...

Intervenor Defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James A. Martin, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Kenyon MacFarlane (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brendan M. Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James A. Martin, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/31/2003 03/31/2003 04/21/2003 04/21/2003 05/12/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT for injunctive relief sought and Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act filed; jury demand. Filing fee waived. (snp) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: Mark A. Pizzo (snp) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
SUMMONS issued for Checkers Drive-In. Consent issued. (snp) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
2 NOTICE of expected deadlines. (rjc) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
3 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - TRACK 2. (ctc) (rjc) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
4 NOTICE of filing notice of compliance with Local Rule 3.05 by EEOC (rm) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (Notice of Compliance) of [3-1] track 2 notice by EEOC (rm) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
6 MOTION by Stephanie P. Credit, Inelia Pino-King with memorandum in support to intervene as plaintiffs . Proposed original complaint in intervention attached. (jab) (Entered: 05/13/2003)

5 of 12

8/14/2007 1:47 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592281573078254-L_3...

05/19/2003 05/27/2003 06/06/2003 06/23/2003 09/16/2003
09/16/2003 09/24/2003 09/29/2003 10/14/2003 10/31/2003 11/04/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/17/2003 11/20/2003
11/21/2003 12/09/2003

7 MOTION by Checkers Drive-In with memorandum in support to dismiss complaint or, in the alternative, to stay this action (jlg) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
8 RESPONSE by Checkers Drive-In in opposition to [6-1] motion to intervene as plaintiffs (rm) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
9 RESPONSE by EEOC in opposition to [7-1] motion to dismiss complaint, [7-2] motion to stay this action. (jab) (Entered: 06/09/2003)
10 NOTICE of withdrawal of motion to intervene on behalf of Inelia Pino-King (rm) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
11 ORDER granting [6-1] motion to intervene as plaintiffs, Ms. Credit is directed to file her complaint in intervention within 11 days, set intervention complaint deadline at 10/6/03 for Stephanie P. Credit (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (rm) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
12 ORDER denying [7-1] motion to dismiss complaint, denying [7-2] motion to stay this action (Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew) ctc (rm) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
13 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by Stephanie P. Credit against Checkers Drive-In; jury demand (ch) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
14 ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to [1-1] complaint by Checkers Drive-In; jury demand. (eec) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
15 MOTION by Checkers Drive-In with memorandum in support to dismiss [13-1] intervenor's complaint (bls) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
16 RESPONSE by Stephanie P. Credit to [15-1] motion to dismiss [13-1] intervenor's complaint (bls) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
17 STIPULATION permitting Inelia Pino-King to intervene by defendant Checkers Drive-In, movant Inelia Pino-King . (wlb) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
18 ORDER granting [6-1] motion to intervene as plaintiffs ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 11/12/2003)
19 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by Stephanie P. Credit, Inelia Pino-King against Checkers Drive-In (bls) (Entered: 11/12/2003)
DEADLINE updated; set answer due to intervenor's complaint for 12/3/03 for Checkers Drive-In (bls) (Entered: 11/12/2003)
20 UNOPPOSED MOTION by EEOC (unopposed) to substitute counsel (John C. Weaver, Esq., in place of Kenneth L. Gillespie, Esq.) (ag) (Entered: 11/18/2003)
21 ORDER granting [20-1] consent motion to substitute counsel (John C. Weaver, Esq., in place of Kenneth L. Gillespie, Esq.) ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (jab) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
22 MOTION by Checkers Drive-In with memorandum in support to dismiss the complaint in intervention of Inelia Pino-King (ch) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
23 RESPONSE by Inelia Pino-King to [22-1] motion to dismiss the complaint in intervention of Inelia Pino-King. (jab) (Entered: 12/10/2003)

6 of 12

8/14/2007 1:47 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592281573078254-L_3...

12/22/2003 12/22/2003 01/06/2004
01/20/2004 01/20/2004 01/26/2004 01/27/2004 01/29/2004 01/29/2004 02/04/2004 02/09/2004 02/11/2004 02/11/2004 02/12/2004
03/02/2004 03/04/2004

24 NOTICE of filing case management report by EEOC, Checkers Drive-In, Stephanie P. Credit, Inelia Pino-King (mrh) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
25 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT (mrh) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
26 ORDER setting preliminary pretrial. Response to standard interrogatories due 1/27/04 for plaintiff and due 2/4/04 for defendant. Preliminary pretrial conference set for 8:30 2/11/04. Scheduled for Judge Susan C. Bucklew. ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (mrh) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
27 CERTIFICATE (NOTICE) OF COMPLIANCE by EEOC Re: [26-1] order by filing certificate of service (mrh) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of [26-1] order by EEOC (mrh) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
28 ORDER denying [22-1] motion to dismiss the complaint in intervention of Inelia Pino-King; denying [15-1] motion to dismiss [13-1] intervenor's complaint ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (mrh) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
29 RESPONSE to standard interrogatories filed by EEOC (mrh) (Entered: 01/27/2004)
30 RESPONSE to standard interrogatories filed by Stephanie Credit (mrh) Modified on 02/04/2004 (Entered: 01/29/2004)
31 RESPONSE to standard interrogatories filed by Inelia Pino-King (mrh) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
32 RESPONSE to standard interrogatories filed by Checkers Drive-In (mrh) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
33 ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to [19-1] intervenor complaint by Checkers Drive-In (mrh) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
34 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 2/11/04 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew; Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (mrh) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
35 ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to [13-1] intervenor complaint by Checkers Drive-In (mrh) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
36 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 7/30/04; dispositive motion filing deadline for 8/13/04; Pretrial statement due on or before 11/5/04; Pretrial conference for 8:30 a.m. on 11/9/04; Jury trial set during the weeks of 12/6/04, 12/13/04 and 12/20/04; Scheduled for Judge Susan C. Bucklew ( signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (bls) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
37 UNOPPOSED MOTION by EEOC (unopposed) to extend time to 6/1/04 to file notice of mediation schedule pursuant to court's case management and scheduling order (mrh) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
38 MOTION by Checkers Drive-In with memorandum in support for leave to amend [36-1] case management and scheduling order by extending all deadlines for a period of 3 months (mrh) (Entered: 03/04/2004)

7 of 12

8/14/2007 1:47 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592281573078254-L_3...

03/10/2004 03/22/2004 03/24/2004 03/24/2004
03/29/2004 03/30/2004
03/30/2004 03/30/2004 04/08/2004 04/22/2004 05/07/2004 05/11/2004

39 JOINT MOTION by EEOC, Stephanie P. Credit with memorandum in support (joint) for protective order and (joint) to quash defendant's subpoenas ; referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (mrh) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
40 RESPONSE by EEOC, Stephanie P. Credit, Inelia Pino-King to [38-1] motion for leave to amend [36-1] case management and scheduling order by extending all deadlines for a period of 3 months (mrh) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
41 ORDER granting unopposed [37-1] consent motion to extend time to 6/1/04 to file notice of mediation schedule pursuant to court's case management and scheduling order ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (mrh) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
42 ORDER granting [38-1] motion for leave to amend [36-1] case management and scheduling order by extending all deadlines for a period of 3 months to the extent that the Court will enter a separate amended case management and scheduling order extending all deadlines for a period of 6 weeks. ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (mrh) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
43 RESPONSE by Checkers Drive-In to [39-1] joint motion for protective order, [39-2] joint motion to quash subpoenas (mrh) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
44 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 9/10/04; disclosure of expert testimony deadline set for 6/14/04; dispositive motion filing deadline for 9/24/04; Pretrial statement due on or before 1/7/05; Pretrial conference set for 8:30 1/12/05; Jury trial set for trial term during the weeks of 2/7/05, 2/14/05, 2/22/05 and 2/28/05; Scheduled for Judge Susan C. Bucklew. Parties shall participate in court-annexed mediation on or before 7/15/04, with mediator, Cary Singletary. ( signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (mrh) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
DEADLINE updated; reset pretrial statement deadline for 1/7/05 (mrh) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
45 AMENDED RESPONSE by Checkers Drive-In to [39-1] joint motion for protective order (mrh) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
46 ORDER granting [39-1] joint motion for protective order, granting [39-2] joint motion to quash defendant's subpoenas ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
47 OBJECTION by Checkers Drive-In to magistrate judge's [46-1] non-dispositive discover order dated 4/8/04 and incorporated memorandum of law. (mrh) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
48 UNOPPOSED MOTION by EEOC with memorandum in support (unopposed) to extend time to respond to defendant's objection to Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive discovery order dated 4/8/04 referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (mrh) Modified on 05/14/2004 (Entered: 05/07/2004)
49 MOTION by Checkers Drive-In with memorandum in support to compel full and complete answers to certain interrogatories and for medical release ; referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (mrh) (Entered: 05/12/2004)

8 of 12

8/14/2007 1:47 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592281573078254-L_3...

05/13/2004
05/14/2004 05/27/2004 06/02/2004 06/02/2004 06/16/2004 06/21/2004 06/23/2004 06/24/2004 07/06/2004
07/12/2004 07/15/2004 07/19/2004 07/21/2004

50 ORDER granting [48-1] unopposed motion to extend time to respond to defendant's objection to Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive discovery order dated 4/8/04. Plaintiff EEOC shall file its response no later than 5/14/04. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo) ctc (mrh) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
51 RESPONSE by EEOC to [47-1] objections to Magistrae Judge Pizzo's order re: joint motion for protective order and to quash subpoenas with memorandum in support (mrh) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
52 RESPONSE by Inelia Pino-King, Stephanie P. Credit to [49-1] motion to compel full and complete answers to certain interrogatories and for medical release (mrh) (Entered: 05/27/2004)
53 NOTICE OF HEARING: set mediation conference for 9:00 6/22/04 at the Offices of Mediator, Cary R. Singletary (mrh) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
54 ORDER denying [49-1] motion to compel full and complete answers to certain interrogatories and for medical release ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo ) ctc (mrh) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
55 JOINT MOTION by EEOC, Checkers Drive-In, Stephanie P. Credit, Inelia Pino-King with memorandum in support (joint) to extend extension of remaining litigation deadlines (mrh) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
56 OBJECTION and accompanying memorandum of law by Checkers Drive-In to [54-1] non-dispositive discovery order (mrh) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
ENDORSED ORDER granting [55-1] joint motion for extension of remaining litigation deadlines ( Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (mrh) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
57 RESPONSE by EEOC to objections to Report and Recommendation (mrh) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
58 2ND AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting mediation on or before 8/26/04 with mediator Cary Singletary; Discovery cutoff 10/22/04; dispositive motion filing deadline for 11/5/04; Pretrial statement due on or before 2/18/05; Pretrial conference set for 8:30 2/23/05; Jury trial set for trial term during the weeks of 3/7/05, 3/14/05, 3/21/05 and 3/28/05; Scheduled for Judge Susan C. Bucklew. Estimated length of trial is 5-15 days. ( signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew ) ctc (mrh) (Entered: 07/07/2004)
59 UNOPPOSED MOTION to extend time for one week beyond mediation deadline to conduct medation by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (mrh) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
60 RETURN of service executed by Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.. (Gibson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
61 Endorsed ORDER granting 59 Plaintiff EEOC's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Conduct Mediation One Week Beyond Current Mediation Deadline. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 7/19/2004. (ckr) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
62 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey W. Gibson on behalf of Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. (Gibson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/21/2004)

9 of 12

8/14/2007 1:47 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592281573078254-L_3...

07/23/2004 08/17/2004
09/03/2004 09/03/2004 09/21/2004
09/28/2004
09/30/2004 10/13/2004 10/15/2004 10/15/2004 11/04/2004 11/08/2004 11/18/2004 11/19/2004 11/19/2004

63 ORDER striking from record (doc. 60) return of service on records custodian of Albertson's, Clerk is directed to return the return of service(doc. 60)to Defendant . Signed by Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 7/23/2004. (DK) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
64 ORDER on 47 Defendant's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Non-Dispositive Discovery Order Dated April 8, 2004 and 56 Defendant's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Non-Dispositive Discovery Order Dated June 1, 2004. The Magistrate Judge's Orders are affirmed. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 8/17/2004. (ckr) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
65 MEDIATION REPORT Hearing held on 9/1/2004 Hearing outcome: Partially Resolved(Singletary, Cary) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
66 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Cary R. Singletary. Amendment to 65 Mediation report. (Singletary, Cary) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
Set/reset scheduling order deadlines: Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/23/2005 08:30 AM in Courtroom 14 A before Judge Susan C Bucklew. Discovery due by 10/22/2004. Jury Trial set for 3/7/2005 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14 A before Judge Susan C Bucklew. Motions due by 11/5/2004. (Cole, R) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
67 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines For Two Weeks by Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., Stephanie P. Credit, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Weaver, John) (Entered: 09/28/2004)
68 ENDORSED ORDER granting 67 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery . Signed by Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 9/30/2004. (DK) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
69 MOTION for protective order and Memorandum of Law by Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.. (Gibson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
70 RESPONSE in opposition re 69 MOTION for protective order and Memorandum of Law filed by Stephanie P. Credit. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Fenton, Matthew) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
71 ORDER granting 69 Motion for protective order . Signed by Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 10/15/2004. (DK) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
72 MOTION to compel by Stephanie P. Credit. (Fenton, Matthew) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
73 CERTIFICATE of compliance re 72 MOTION to compel by Stephanie P. Credit. (Fenton, Matthew) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
74 RESPONSE to motion re 72 MOTION to compel filed by Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.. (Gibson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
75 MOTION for summary judgment by Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.. (Gibson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
76 MEMORANDUM in support re 75 Motion for summary judgment Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Facts filed by Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.. (Gibson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/19/2004)

10 of 12

8/14/2007 1:47 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592281573078254-L_3...

12/03/2004 12/03/2004 12/07/2004
12/09/2004
12/09/2004 02/07/2005 02/08/2005 02/10/2005 02/14/2005 02/14/2005 02/16/2005 02/17/2005

77 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 72 Motion to compel . See order for details. Signed by Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 12/3/2004. (DK) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
78 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Credit's Motion to Compel (doc. 72). See order for details.Signed by Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 12/3/2004. (DK) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
79 ORDER noting that the following attorneys in this case are currently not utilizing the CM/ECF system to file and/or receive Court documents: Delner Franklin-Thomas, Eric Dreiband, Gwendolyn Y. Reams, James Lee, Nicholas M. Inzeo, Andrew Kenyon MacFarlane, and Brendan M. Lee. These attorneys are directed to sign up for CM/ECF, and after signing up for CM/ECF, they must enter an email address at which they will receive all Court filings. Additionally, the Clerk is directed to stop sending paper copies to these attorneys after sending this Order. Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew on 12/7/2004. (ckr) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
80 RESPONSE in opposition re 75 MOTION for summary judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1-4# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 5-6# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 7# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 9-11# 6 Exhibit Exhibits 12-14# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 15# 8 Exhibit Exhibits 16-18)(Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
81 RESPONSE in opposition re 75 MOTION for summary judgment Plaintiff EEOC's Statement of Material Facts in Dispute filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
82 STIPULATION of Dismissal AGREED STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PREJDUDICE by Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.. (Gibson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
83 ENDORSED ORDER granting 82 Agreed Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew on 2/8/2005. (ckr) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
84 STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc.. (Gibson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
85 ENDORSED ORDER granting 84 Agreed Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice. Plaintiff-Intervenor Stephanie P. Credit's cause is hereby dismissed with prejudice with each party to bear their own costs and attorney fees. Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew on 2/14/2005. (ckr) (Entered: 02/14/2005)
86 ORDER denying 75 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew on 2/14/2005. (ckr) (Entered: 02/14/2005)
87 TRIAL CALENDAR for trial term March, 2005 Jury Trial set for weeks of March 7th through March 28th, 2005, at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14 A before Judge Susan C Bucklew. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 2/16/2005. (ls ) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
88 Unopposed MOTION to substitute attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/17/2005)

11 of 12

8/14/2007 1:47 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?592281573078254-L_3...

02/17/2005
02/17/2005 02/22/2005
02/23/2005 02/23/2005 02/23/2005
03/09/2005 03/10/2005 08/23/2005

89 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Notice of Designation for Receipt of Service via CM/ECF System (Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
90 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
91 ENDORSED ORDER granting 88 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Substitution of Counsel. Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew on 2/22/2005. (ckr) (Entered: 02/22/2005)
92 PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew on 2/23/2005. (ckr) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
93 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Mary S. Scriven : Settlement Conference held on 2/23/2005. (mss) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
94 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan C Bucklew : PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 2/23/2005. Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (ls ) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
95 CONSENT DECREE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit exhibits a&b)(Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
96 Order on Consent Decree. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew on 3/10/2005. (ckr) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
97 TRANSCRIPT of Pretrial Conference held on 2/23/05 before Judge Susan C. Bucklew. Court Reporter: Paul K. Spangler, RMR. (mrh) (Entered: 08/23/2005)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

08/14/2007 14:46:43

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

8:03-cv-00568-SCB-MAP

Billable Pages:

7

Cost:

0.56

12 of 12

8/14/2007 1:47 PM


[CONTENT] EEOC | March 27, 2003 | the U.S. District Court | the Middle District | Florida | Tampa ||| Two ||| EEOC | Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. | Title VII | two ||| Florida ||| three | one |||  ||| February 23, 2005 ||| March 9, 2005 | March 10, 2005 ||| EEOC | annual |||  ||| three years ||| 2008 [SUMMARY] The EEOC filed this suit on March 27, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). Two complainants intervened in the suit. The EEOC alleged that defendant Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. violated Title VII by subjecting the two female complainants to sexual harassment resulting in a hostile work environment. The intervenors further alleged violation of a Florida anti-discrimination statute. The defendant filed three motions to dismiss and one motion for summary judgment, all unsuccessful. The motion for summary judgment was denied after the parties stipulated to dismissal of the case. A settlement conference was held February 23, 2005. A consent decree was filed March 9, 2005 and the decree was entered into the record March 10, 2005. 

In the consent decree the defendant agreed to post notice, report to the EEOC regarding complaints, and provide annual training sessions to employees. The consent decree recognized monetary payment to complainants in an undisclosed amount. The decree was to last for three years. The docket sheet doesn't show any further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2008.

