UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 804,

)

)

Defendant

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04 CV 02409 COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND ECF CASE JUDGE SWAIN

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”),

and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis

of disability and to provide appropriate relief to the Charging Party (“John Doe”), a qualified

individual with a disability (“AIDS”) who was adversely affected by such practices. As alleged

with greater particularity below, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the

Commission”) alleges that Defendant, Teamsters Local 804 (“Local 804"), subjected John Doe to

discrimination on the basis of his disability by disclosing the fact that he has AIDS to his co-

workers.

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: Section107(a) of the ADA,

42 U.S.C. §12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and Section 102 of

the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981A.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Commission, is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title I of the ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Local 804 has continuously been a labor organization that represents, among other workers, United Parcel Service (“UPS”) employees in the city of New York, and has continuously had at least 15 employees and 7500 members. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Local 804 has continuously been a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701(d) and (e) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(d) and (e). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Local 804 has been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(2).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, John Doe filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant Local 804. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. John Doe is HIV positive and suffers from AIDS. As such, he is a qualified individual with a disability pursuant to Title I of the ADA.
2

9. John Doe was hired by UPS in 1989 as a driver. By virtue of his employment, John Doe has been, at all relevant times, a member of Local 804.
10. In approximately 1995, John Doe requested and was provided a transfer to an indoor position (return clerk), as a reasonable accommodation. John Doe continues to be employed with UPS in the position of return clerk.
11. Since at least April 2001, Defendant Local 804 has engaged in unlawful employment practices at UPS’ facilities located in New York, New York, in violation of Section 102 of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12112 (d) et seq. These practices include but are not limited to the unauthorized disclosure of information required to be kept confidential by the ADA. Specifically, Local 804 divulged confidential information about John Doe’s medical condition to his co-workers.
17. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 11 above has been to deprive John Doe of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of his disability.
18. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 11 above were intentional.
19. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 11 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of John Doe.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Local 804, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in
3

any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of disability.

B. Order Defendant Local 804 to institute and carry out policies, practices, and

programs which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with

disabilities, and which provide affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful

employment practices.

C. Order Defendant Local 804 to make John Doe whole, by providing appropriate

backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial.

D. Order Defendant Local 804 to make John Doe whole by providing compensation

for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices

described in paragraph 11 above, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering and

inconvenience, in amounts to be determined at trial.

E. Order Defendant Local 804 to pay John Doe punitive damages for its malicious

and reckless conduct described in paragraph 11 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

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

interest.

G Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 26, 2004 New York, NY

Eric S. Dreiband General Counsel

James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel

4

Gwendolyn Y. Reams Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
Katherine E. Bissell (KB 1831) Regional Attorney
Elizabeth Grossman (EG 2478) Supervisory Trial Attorney
Adela P. Santos (AS 4429) Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004-2112 (212) 336-3695 (212) 336-3623 (Fax No.)
5

 </s> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOt:THERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTIJNITY : COMMISSIO:-r,
Plaintiff,
v,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 804, Defendant,

rru~;G{: Sm~Y'-"-

II

i! !"
.

1'f -r7U:",:IA-0'JCt.",r.'.""C"r......1!!.Ji~,<\.1:).:.,t..-..ld.,.-,'.•.".-,J~,..;"J.".,...,.<,'"~

t
ii.

!\'
... ,_

"!
!t"'"i-l..b....-J..U .!j

II': DDAOTCEIIF' lLE~~O~ Z 8 ~JIIJ

04 CV 02409 (PAC)

STIPULATED ORDER Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter "Commission" or "EEOC"), an agency of the United States Government, commenced the abov.,..captioned action alleging that Teamsters Loca1804 (hereinafter "Local 804") disclosed that Charging Party ("John Doe") has AIDS to co-workers of John Doe and that such disclosure would violate Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Local 804 denied the material all.gations ofEEOe's Complaint EEOC and Local 804 desire to settle this action to avoid the burden and expense of additional and protracted litigation, EEOC and Local 804 hereby stipulate to the tenus set forth herein and agree to the issuance ofthis Order by the Court, Local 804 and EEOC (hereinafter "the parties") agree that this Order be issued without Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law having been made or entered by the Court. The parties agree and understand that this Order in no way affects EEOC's

right to process any other pending or future charges that may be filed against Local 804 and to
commence civil actions on any such charges unrelated to this case and in no way affects Local 804's right to defend any other pending or future charges and to defend any civil actions on any such charges.
In consideration cfthe mutual promises ofeach party to this Order, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree and the Court ORDERS as follows:
I. This Order resolves any and all claims raised in EEOC Charge Numher J60-A200552 or in the Complaint, No. 04 CV 02409, filed by EEOC in this case.
2. The parties agree and the Conrt finds that this Conrt has jurisdiction of the subject matter ofthis action and of the parties, that venue is proper, and that all administrative prerequisites have been met. No party shall contest the validity of this Order, or the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce this Order and its terms.
3. This Order is being issued with the consent of the parties. This Order does not constitute an adjudication or finding hy the Court on the merits ofthe allegations or claims set forth in the Complaint. This Order is not intended, and shall not be construed, as an admission that Local 804, or any of its officers, employees, or agents, violated any law or committed any wrong,
4. Local 804. its managers. officers, agents, successors, and assIgns will not discriminate or retaliate against any individual with a disability, including, but not limited to,
disclosing confidential medical infonnation pursuant to the ADA. 5. Local 804 shall pay John Doe the total amount of $20,000 which represcnts $2500
in back pay, less applicable employment and withholding taxes, and $17,500 in compensatory damages for which Local 804 shall issue an fRS form 1099 to John Doe.
2

6. Local 804 shall make the payment referenced in paragraph 5 within 14 (fourteen) days after receiving notice ofthe Court's execution ofthis Order. The payment shall be mailed
to lohn Doe at an address to be provided by the EEOC to Local 804. A copy of the check and
any accompanying transmittal papers shall be contemporaneously forwarded to Adela Santos, Trial Attorney, EEOC, New York District Office of tho EEOC, New York District Office, 33 'Whitehall Street, New York, New York, 10004-2112.
7. Local 804 shall post within 14 days after receiving notice of the Court's execution ofthis Order the EEOC's poster at its office permanently pursuant to 29 CFR §1601.30 and at all United Parcel Service (hereinafter "liPS") facilities v.ithin its jurisdiction which allow Local 804 to post material, in areas that are visually accessible to applicants, members, and employees of Local 804, for a period of one (l) year from the date of execution ofthis Order.
8. Local 804 sball post at its office and at the UPS facility where lohn Doe works, in areas that are visually accessible to applicants, members, and employees ofLoca! 804, a copy of the notice printed ou Local 804's letterhead in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A", commencing January 1, 2007, and for the duration of the Order.
9. Local 804 shall provide two and one-half(2.5) hours oftraining in fedcrallaws that prohibit discrimination in employment to all Local 804 business agents and officers servicing liPS' 43,d Street facility in Manhattan, NY. The training shall be conducted by an independent agency or contractor [previously approved by EEOC]. A copy oftbe training syllabus has been reviewed and approved by EEOC. This training shall be completed on or before December 31, 2006. No later than thirty (30) days after tbe training is provided, Local 804 will report to EEOC the names and titles ofeach person who attended and completed the training.
3

10. Local 804 will abide by the ADA as well as policies set forth in the IBT

Constitution and Local 804 By-Laws that prohibit discrimination,

11. At John Doe's request, Local 804's current Secretary-Treasurer, Anthony

Magrene, will assist John Doe process a request for a transfer to another UPS facility andlor

Loca1804, through Mr. Magrene, will approach UPS on John Doe's behalfto request such a

transfer.

12. As set forth in paragraphs six (6} and nine (9} above, Local 804 will provide

written notification to EEOC of its compliance with the terms ofthis Order. The parties will

attempt to resolve any disputes which may arise regarding compliance with this Order prior to

seeking relieffrom the Court.

13. The duration ofthe Order shall be for eighteen (18) months from the date ofits

execution by the Court.

14. Each party shall be responsible for its own costs and fees.

Dated: New York, New York October ~, 2006

Dated: New York, New York
October -1.lL-. 2006

MEYER, SUOZZ!. E!'lGLlSH & KLEIN. P.e.
By: Richard Brook (RB 7355) Attorney 1350 Broadway, Suite 501 New York, NY 10018 (212)239-4999 (212) 239-1311 (Fax)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTL'N1TY COMMISSION
By: E~~~G2478) Regional Attorney 33 Whitehall Street, 5" Floor New York. NY 10004-2112 (212) 336-3696 (212) 336-3623 (Fax)

ATfOR."IEYS FOR DEFENDANT
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 804

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAtNTIFF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTLNITY COMMISSION

tEii"·

4

HON. fWJLA.

UNITED $TlaES DiSIRIOT 110M

EXHIBIT A

NOTICE
L This notice to employees and members of LOCAL 804, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS is being posted as part of an Order issued in a case between Local 804 and the united States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").
2. Federal law prohibits employers and unions from discriminating against any employee, applicant for employment, or union member because of that person's sex, race, national origin, color, religion, age (40 and over), or disability "..ith respect to hiring,
compensation. promotion, discharge. or other tenus. conditions or privileges of
employment. Federal law also prohibits employers and unions from disclosing medical information required to be kept confidential by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
3. Local 804 will comply with such anti-discrimination laws in all aspects, and it will not
retaliate against any employee or member for bringing a complaint pursuant to Lucal 804'5 anti-discrimination policies, or bec-ause such employee or member files charges of discrimination or cooperates with the EEOC, or otherwise opposes unlawful employment practices. 4. EEOC maintains offices throughout the United States. Its toll-free telephone number is J-SOO-USA-EEOC. The New York District Office of the EEOC which has jurisdiction over the state of New York can be reached at 1-800-669-4000 or dialed directly at (212) 336-3620. The EEOC may also be contacted tbrough its website at www.eeoc.gov.
5. This NOTICE shall rernam posted until _ _ _ _ _, 2008.
SIGNED this _ day of _____ 2oo6.
Howard Redmond President, Local 804
18322

 </s> E.E.O.C. v. Teamsters Local 804, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

2004 WL 2496080 United States District Court,
S.D. New York.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 804, Defendant.
No. 04 Civ. 2409LTS. | Nov. 4, 2004.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM ORDER
SWAIN, J.
*1 Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of John Doe against Teamsters Local 804 (“Defendant” or “Local 804”), alleging that Defendant violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) when it engaged in unlawful employment practices based on John Doe’s disability. The Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1345. Defendant moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.
BACKGROUND
The facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint are taken as true for the purposes of this motion. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Plaintiff” or “EEOC”) is a governmental agency charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title I of the ADA. (Compl.¶ 3.) Defendant Teamsters Local 804 is a labor organization that represents employees of United Parcel Service (“UPS”). (Id.¶ 4.) In 1989, UPS hired John Doe as a driver; thus, John Doe has been a member of Local 804 since that time. (Id.¶ 9.) John Doe is HIV positive and suffers from AIDS. (Id.¶ 8.) In or around 1995, John Doe requested a transfer to an indoor position as a reasonable accommodation. UPS granted this request and transferred John Doe to the position of return clerk, a position in which he continues to be employed. (Id.¶ 10.) In April 2001, Defendant disclosed confidential information regarding John Doe’s medical condition to his colleagues. (Id.¶ 11.) Prior to the commencement of this action, John Doe filed a charge

with the EEOC alleging that Defendant violated Title I of the ADA. (Id. ¶ 7 .)
Plaintiff filed a complaint with this Court alleging that Defendant’s disclosure of John Doe’s medical condition to his colleagues was a violation of Section 102 of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d) et seq. Plaintiff alleges that, as a consequence of Defendant’s actions, John Doe has been deprived of equal employment opportunities and his status as an employee has been adversely affected. (Id.¶¶ 11, 17.)
DISCUSSION
In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must accept as true the allegations contained in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Blue Tree Hotels Inv. (Canada), Ltd. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 369 F.3d 212, 217 (2d Cir.2004) (citing Gryl v.. Shire Pharm. Group PLC, 298 F.3d 136, 140 (2d Cir.2002)). The Court should not dismiss a complaint “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957.)
The Supreme Court held in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U .S. 506, 508 (2002), that an employment discrimination complaint need not include specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, but is only required to contain a short and plain statement of the claim pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The short and plain statement must “ ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” ’ Id. at 512 (quoting Conley, 355 U.S. at 47).
*2 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed because it fails to allege that Defendant obtained information regarding John Doe’s medical condition under any circumstance in which the ADA requires such information to be kept confidential. The ADA outlines three circumstances under which a covered entity must protect the confidentiality of an employee’s medical condition or history. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d). Specifically, a covered entity is required to keep medical information confidential if it is obtained when: (1) the covered entity requires an individual to whom employment has been extended to undergo a pre-employment medical exam prior to the commencement of employ, see 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3); (2) the covered entity requires a current employee to undergo a medical examination or respond to an inquiry
1

E.E.O.C. v. Teamsters Local 804, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

that is job-related and consistent with business necessity, see 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(c); or (3) the covered entity conducts a voluntary medical examination that is part of an employee health program available at the work site, see 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(B). Plaintiff contends that, if the facts alleged in its complaint are taken as true, a reasonable inference can be drawn that Defendant received information regarding John Doe’s health in a manner covered by 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d). Plaintiff argues in the alternative that, even if Defendant did not receive the information in a manner described in 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d), the ADA still requires that it keep the information confidential.
Although Plaintiff’s Complaint does not set forth specific factual allegations regarding the manner in which Defendant obtained John Doe’s medical information, it cannot be said beyond doubt that Plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of its claim which would entitle it to relief because Plaintiff could, consistent with the allegations in the complaint, prove a set of facts indicating that Defendant did obtain information in a manner covered by 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d).1 For example, Plaintiff may be able to prove that UPS obtained the information through inquiries in connection with the use of sick time for medical appointments (see EEOC Charge ¶ 4, annexed

to Decl. of Richard Brook) and that Local 804 similarly obtained the information from UPS in connection with covered inquiries into Plaintiff’s ability to perform essential job functions. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(b). The Court concludes, therefore, that Plaintiff’s Complaint comports with Rule 8 and is sufficient to withstand Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.

1

At this stage, the Court need not address the issue of

whether a non-disclosure duty arises when a covered

entity obtains an employee’s medical information in a

manner not enumerated in 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d).

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint is denied.
SO ORDERED.

Parallel Citations
16 A.D. Cases 307, 29 NDLR P 99
	
  

2

 </s> E.E.O.C. v. Teamsters Local 804, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2006 WL 44023 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION United States District Court,
S.D. New York.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 804, Defendant.
No. 04 Civ. 2409(LTS). | Jan. 9, 2006.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM ORDER
SWAIN, J.
*1 In a letter dated December 6, 2005, Plaintiff requests that the undersigned set aside or modify a November 28, 2005 order issued by Magistrate Judge Frank Maas in the above-referenced case. The Court is also in receipt of Defendant’s response, dated December 13, 2005. After carefully reviewing the parties’ written submissions, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request in its entirety.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(A) (West 2005), “[a] judge of the court may reconsider any [non-dispositive] pretrial matter ... where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. Following a party’s objection to a magistrate’s order, “[t]he district judge to whom the case

is assigned shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). A magistrate judge’s order is “clearly erroneous” where “ ‘on the entire evidence,’ the [district court] is ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” ’ Easley v.. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 243 (2001) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Further, the clearly erroneous standard of review is “highly deferential[, and] ... magistrate judges are afforded broad discretion in resolving non-dispositive disputes and reversal is appropriate only if their discretion is abused.” Derthick v. Bassett-Walker, Inc., Nos. 90 Civ. 5427(JMC), 90 Civ. 7479(JMC), & 90 Civ. 3845(JMC), 1992 WL 249951, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 1992).
Here, the Court does not find that Magistrate Judge Maas’ decision to direct Plaintiff to produce certain documents withheld during discovery was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Maas correctly noted that a party seeking to invoke the governmental deliberative process privilege must produce an affidavit from the agency head. See EEOC v. American In’tl Group, Inc., No. 93 Civ. 6390(PKL) 1994 WL 376052, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 1994). His order found that Plaintiff did not provide the required information. The record indicates that Plaintiff provided this information only subsequent to Judge Maas’ November 28, 2005 order. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis to disturb Judge Maas’ findings with regard to production of the relevant documents. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.
	
  

1

 </s> E.E.O.C. v. Teamsters Local 804, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2006 WL 988138 United States District Court,
S.D. New York.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 804, Defendant.
No. 04 Civ. 2409(PAC). | April 12, 2006.
Opinion

MEMORANDUM ORDER

CROTTY, J.
*1 Defendant Teamsters Local 804 (“Local 804”) moves for summary judgment against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) claim that Local 804 violated the Americans with Disability Act by disclosing the previously confidential information that Mr. Doe (an employee of UPS and a member of Local 804) had AIDS. While it pains me to do so, the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
At all times since November 1990, Mr. Doe has been employed by UPS and represented for collective bargaining purposes by Local 804. In March 1994, Mr. Doe was diagnosed with HIV and lymphoma. Immediately after, Mr. Doe notified his supervisor and the Human Resources Department at UPS that he had been diagnosed with cancer and needed to take disability leave to undergo treatment. Mr. Doe did not tell anyone at that time that he was HIV positive or had AIDS.
When Mr. Doe returned to work in January 1995, he requested a transfer from his original position as a package driver to an inside position, to accomodate the needs of his disability. UPS asked Mr. Doe for verification of his disability, so Mr. Doe submitted a doctor’s note stating that he had AIDS and lymphoma.1 While UPS granted the accommodation and gave Mr. Doe a position as a return clerk, it is undisputed that the transfer could not be finalized without Local 804’s concurrence because the return clerk position implicated seniority rights. It is also undisputed that Local 804 agreed to the transfer, as Mr. Doe commenced working as a return clerk in January 1995.

1

Because the doctor’s note was submitted at UPS’s

request, in order to procure a reasonable accomodation,

the information contained in the doctor’s note was protected from disclosure. See 42 U.S.C. 12112(D)(4)(A) and (B). Prior to submission of the doctor’s note, Mr. Doe never told or admitted to anyone that he had AIDS. He freely admitted that he had lymphoma and was undergoing chemotherapy.
It is less clear from the record what information UPS provided to Local 804 about Mr. Doe’s condition in order to effectuate the transfer. The EEOC contends that UPS told Local 804 that Mr. Doe had AIDS. Local 804 contends that UPS did not need to reveal the exact nature of Mr. Doe’s disability in order to obtain the transfer, and that UPS did not reveal to Local 804 at that (or any other) time that Mr. Doe suffered from AIDS. This is a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved by a jury.
The EEOC then alleges that, in April 2001, more than six years after Mr. Doe’s doctor submitted Mr. Doe’s confidential medical information to UPS to obtain the transfer, a union official, in the course of a conversation with a disgruntled employee, stated-perhaps negligently, but certainly not intentionally or malevolently-that Mr. Doe had AIDS. Local 804 denies that this disclosure ever occurred. In the alternative, Local 804 maintains that any information that may have been disclosure in April 2001, if in fact it was disclosed, was gained through sources other than Mr. Doe’s January 1995 accomodation, and therefore the disclosure did not violate the ADA.
After substantial discovery, neither party has been able to establish whether Mr. Doe’s medical information was transmitted from UPS to Local 804, and, if so, under what circumstances. The parties hotly dispute who said what, to whom, and when, or what the exact path of transmission of the confidential information may have been. Much of the EEOC’s argument is based on a series of inferences and assumptions. Reading the record as a whole, the Court finds that the following factual questions exist, though some of them are highly attenuated and hang only by the slimmest thread: *2 (i) Did UPS share Mr. Doe’s confidential medical information with Local 804 in January 1995 (or any time thereafter)?
(ii) If so, did Local 804 know at the time that UPS shared Mr. Doe’s medical information that the information was confidential (i.e ., provided to UPS as part of a reasonable accomodation or other job-related inquiry that is protected from disclosure by § 12112(d) of the ADA)?
(iii) If so, did Mr. Doe violate this confidentiality requirement by disclosing to Mr. Doe’s coworkers that he had AIDS?
1

E.E.O.C. v. Teamsters Local 804, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

These are all disputed issues of material fact that the Court must send to a jury.
The legal import of the jury’s factual findings turns on an interesting legal question of first impression: whether the ADA imposes an identical duty of confidentiality not only on the employer that originally requested the medical examination or inquiry from the employee, but also on all third-party entities with whom the employer shares the information? The EEOC argues that third-party covered entities bear the same confidentiality obligation as the inquiring employer, though it admits that no precedent exists to support this proposition. Local 804 argues, on the other hand, that the plain language of § 12112(d) makes clear that only the originally inquiring employer bears a duty of confidentiality as to the information provided; third-party covered entities who did not actually request the medical examination or inquiry are not under a similar obligation, even if they learn the medical information from the confidentiality-bound employer. The Court declines to rule on this question at this juncture. While there are good reasons for protecting an individual’s confidential medical information from disclosure, regardless of whether the disclosure comes from the originally inquiring entity or a third-party that learned the information from the inquiring entity at a later date, there are good reasons for not reading the statute as expansively as the EEOC requests. It is better to wait until the parties develop a more detailed record at trial, rather than resolve this issue on the papers submitted, since it is still unclear whether Local 804 learned of Doe’s medical condition from UPS in the first place. Nonetheless, given the state of the present record, the Court is doubtful whether the record will ever be adequate to resolve this difficult question.

Local 804 also moves to strike the EEOC’s request for compensatory and punitive damages on the ground that it has fewer than fourteen employees. This position is only defensible if the Court finds, as Local 804 urges, that Local 804’s seven elected officers are not employees. The Court refuses to adopt this limited interpretation of the term “employees” and denies Local 804’s request. Accordingly, the Court finds that Local 804 had eighteen employees, which subjects Local 804 to a total potential compensatory and punitive damages liability of $50,000. 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b)(3).
*3 In light of the limited monetary exposure and the complex questions that must be resolved on this imperfect record, the Court encourages the parties to engage in good faith negotiations to resolve their differences. The Court recognizes that the EEOC is a public agency, charged with discharging a statutory mandate, and therefore must disclose all settlements to the public. At the same time, Local 804’s unintentional (or, at worst, negligent) disclosure of Doe’s medical condition (if made) provides no basis whatsoever for any monitoring by the EEOC; nor does it provide the basis for punitive damages. Moreover, damages for lost wages appear to be very limited; and Mr. Doe continues to work. In light of these facts, the Court encourages the parties to negotiate a settlement that is mutually agreeable to both sides. SO ORDERED
Parallel Citations
32 NDLR P 666
	
  

2

 </s> SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?239423978519232-L_3...

CASREF, CLOSED, ECF
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-02409-PAC-FM

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Teamsters Local Date Filed: 03/26/2004

804

Date Terminated: 12/01/2006

Assigned to: Judge Paul A. Crotty

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Frank Maas

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Cause: 28:1345 USA Plaintiff

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Adela P. Santos U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall St., 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 212-336-3695 Fax: 212-336-3623 Email: adela.santos@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Anne Grossman U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall St., 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 336-3721 Fax: (212) 336-3623 Email: elizabeth.grossman@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine Elizabeth Bissell U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall St., 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 336-3721 Fax: (212) 336-3623 Email: katherine.bissell@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

1 of 10

5/23/2007 12:34 PM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?239423978519232-L_3...

Defendant Teamsters Local 804

represented by Richard Alan Brook Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. (Melvile) 425 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 405 Melville, NY 11747 212-239-4999 Fax: 212-239-1311 Email: rbrook@msek.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/26/2004 03/26/2004 03/26/2004 03/26/2004 04/07/2004
06/03/2004
06/03/2004 06/15/2004
06/15/2004
06/25/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Teamsters Local 804. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(jjm, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/29/2004 (jjm, ). (Entered: 03/29/2004)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Teamsters Local 804. (jjm, ) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
Magistrate Judge Frank Maas is so designated. (jjm, ) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
Case Designated ECF. (jjm, ) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
2 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL ORDER Pretrial Conference set for 6/30/2004 10:00 AM before Judge Laura Taylor Swain, in Courtroom No. 444, 40 Foley Square, NY, NY; (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 04/06/04) Copies forwarded by CHambers.(djc, ) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
3 STIPULATION AND ORDER; that the time for defendant to answer or otherwise move with respect to the Complaint in this action is extended to 6/15/04. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 6/2/04) Copies Faxed By Chambers.(sac, ) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
Set Answer Due Date purs. to 3 Stipulation and Order as to Teamsters Local 804 answer due on 6/15/2004. (sac, ) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
4 MOTION to Dismiss and Notice to Motion of Defendant Teamsters 804 to Dismiss the Compliant. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. Responses due by 6/29/2004 Return Date set for 7/7/2004 02:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard A. Brook# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B)(Brook, Richard) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
5 BRIEF re: 4 MOTION to Dismiss and Notice to Motion of Defendant Teamsters 804 to Dismiss the Compliant.. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Attachments: # 1 Addendum cover and contents page# 2 Addendum Item 1# 3 Addendum Item 2# 4 Addendum Item 3)(Brook, Richard) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
6 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Richard Brook dated 6/3/04; Re: Pretrial Conference set for 10/14/2004 at 2:00 PM before Judge Laura Taylor Swain, and the related deadlines are modified accordingly. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 6/24/04) Copies Faxed By Chambers.(sac, ) (Entered: 06/25/2004)

2 of 10

5/23/2007 12:34 PM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?239423978519232-L_3...

06/25/2004 06/29/2004
07/02/2004 07/02/2004 07/12/2004 10/06/2004 10/06/2004 10/08/2004 11/04/2004 11/10/2004 11/12/2004 11/12/2004

7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of June 24, 2004 Memo Endorsement served on Katherine E. Bissell, Elizabeth Grossman and Adela P. Santos on June 25, 2004. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Brook, Richard) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
8 ENDORSED LETTER re: 4 MOTION to Dismiss and Notice to Motion of Defendant Teamsters 804 to Dismiss the Compliant. filed by Teamsters Local 804 addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Adela P. Santos dated 6/28/04, Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 4 MOTION to Dismiss and Notice to Motion of Defendant Teamsters 804 to Dismiss the Compliant.:The requested extensions are granted. Responses due by 7/2/2004; Replies due by 7/12/2004. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 6/28/04) Copies Faxed By Chambers.(sac, ) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
9 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 4 MOTION to Dismiss and Notice to Motion of Defendant Teamsters 804 to Dismiss the Compliant.. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Santos, Adela) (Entered: 07/02/2004)
10 AFFIDAVIT of Adela Santos in Support re: 4 MOTION to Dismiss and Notice to Motion of Defendant Teamsters 804 to Dismiss the Compliant.. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Santos, Adela) (Entered: 07/02/2004)
11 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 4 MOTION to Dismiss and Notice to Motion of Defendant Teamsters 804 to Dismiss the Compliant.. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Brook, Richard) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
12 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Swain from Richard Brook dated 10/05/04 re: the (pre-trial) conference is adjourned to November 19, 2004 at 11:00 a.m. and the related deadlines are modified accordingly; (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/6/04) (djc, ) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Pretrial Conference set for 11/19/2004 11:00 AM before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. (djc, ) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Memo Endorsement served on Katherine E. Bissell, Elizabeth Grossmand and Adela P. Santos on October 7, 2004. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Brook, Richard) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
14 ORDER denying 4 Motion to Dismiss . Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint is denied. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/4/04) (jco, ) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
15 MOTION to Continue Initial Pre-trial Conference. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Santos, Adela) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
16 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Swain from Adela P. Santos dated 11/10/04 re: counsel requests an adjournment of pre-trial conference; the conference is adjourned to December 17, 2004; (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/11/04) (djc, ) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Pretrial Conference set for 12/17/2004 02:00 PM before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. (djc, ) (Entered: 11/15/2004)

3 of 10

5/23/2007 12:34 PM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?239423978519232-L_3...

12/13/2004 12/14/2004
12/14/2004
01/18/2005 01/25/2005 01/28/2005 01/31/2005 01/31/2005
02/07/2005 03/02/2005 03/04/2005 03/04/2005 03/18/2005

17 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time by Letter to the Honorable Laura Taylor Swain, U.S.D.J.. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Brook, Richard) (Entered: 12/13/2004)
18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Memo Endorsement on the December 13, 2004 letter from Richard Brook to the Court served on Katherine E. Bissell, Elizabeth Grossman and Adela P. Santos on December 14, 2004. Service was made by FAX. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Brook, Richard) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
19 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Swain from Richard Brook dated 12/13/04 re: parties requests that the court adjourn the conference scheduled for Deccember 17, 2004 and all related deadlines to the second week in January 2005; the conference is adjourned to January 28, 205 at 2:00 p.m. and the related deadlines are modified accordingly; (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/13/04) (djc, ) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
20 ANSWER to Complaint. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804.(Brook, Richard) (Entered: 01/18/2005)
21 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL STATEMENT. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Santos, Adela) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Laura Taylor Swain : Interim Pretrial Conference held on 1/28/2005. Parties referred to MJ for GPT - PTC adj to 1/5/06 at 2:15 p.m. - orders signed. (kw, ) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
22 SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 3/18/2005. all expert witness Discovery due by 8/30/2005. Pretrial Conference set for 1/5/2006 02:15 PM before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/28/05; copies given to counsel of record (djc, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
23 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for general pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement). Referred to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/28/05) (djc, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
24 RULE 26 DISCLOSURE.Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Santos, Adela) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Frank Maas : Settlement Conference held on 3/2/2005. settlement conf. held before Mag. Judge Maas; parties are unable to reach a settlement. (dle, ) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
25 ORDER; Purs to the settlement conf held on 03/22/05, it is hereby Ordered that a telephone conf in this matter shall be held on 03/24/05 at 10:00 a.m.... (Signed by Judge Frank Maas on 3/3/05) (djc, ) (Entered: 03/08/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 3/24/2005 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Frank Maas. (djc, ) (Entered: 03/08/2005)
26 AMENDED ANSWER to 1 Complaint. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Brook, Richard) (Entered: 03/18/2005)

4 of 10

5/23/2007 12:34 PM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?239423978519232-L_3...

03/29/2005 04/01/2005 08/15/2005 08/16/2005 08/31/2005
09/09/2005 09/13/2005 09/21/2005
09/21/2005 10/12/2005

27 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas from Richard Brook dated 3/23/05; re: conference adjourned to 4/1/05 at 3 p.m.. (Signed by Judge Frank Maas on 3/25/05) (sac, ) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
28 ORDER. Pursuant to today's telephone conference, it is hereby ordered that a further telephone conference in this matter shall be held on 8/15/2005 at 10:00 AM for the plaintiff shall initiate the call (Signed by Judge Frank Maas on 4/1/05) Copies sent by Chambers (yv, ) Modified on 4/5/2005 (yv, ). (Entered: 04/05/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Frank Maas : Telephone Conference held on 8/15/2005. Discovery issues addressed. (db, ) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
29 FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Letter). (Attachments: # 1)(Santos, Adela) Modified on 9/13/2005 (kg). (Entered: 08/16/2005)
30 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Maas from Adela Santos dated 8/16/05 re: request for an extension of the discovery deadline. Judge Swain's final pretrial conference is adjourned to 2/24/2006 at 02:00 PM, which enables the parties to extend all interim dates 6 weeks. Counsel should submit an agreed revised schedule within 10 days (Signed by Judge Frank Maas on 8/28/05) (yv, ) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
31 FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT MOTION to Approve Agreed Revised Schedule (Letter). Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1)(Santos, Adela) Modified on 9/13/2005 (kg). (Entered: 09/09/2005)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - NON-ECF DOCUMENT ERROR. Note to Attorney Adela Santos to MANUALLY RE-FILE Document No. 31 Letter. This document is not filed via ECF. (kg) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
32 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas from Adela Santos dated 9/9/05 re: Application GRANTED. The interim dates proposed shall govern the remaining pre-trial proceedings in this case. Additionally, the Court will hold a telephone conference, to be initiated by the EEOC, on 11/15/05 at 5:00 p.m. Dispositive pre-trial motions due 11/15/05; Joint Pre-trial Statement; all other deadlines as further set forth in said order. (Signed by Judge Frank Maas on 9/20/05) (db, ) Modified on 9/22/2005 (gf, ). (Entered: 09/22/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Dospositive Pre-Trial Motions due by 11/15/2005. Joint-Pretrial Statement due by 2/14/2006. Telephone Conference set for 11/15/2005 05:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Frank Maas. (db, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
33 FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Letter). Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Santos, Adela) Modified on 10/19/2005 (kg). (Entered: 10/12/2005)

5 of 10

5/23/2007 12:34 PM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?239423978519232-L_3...

10/14/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 11/01/2005 11/04/2005 11/08/2005
11/09/2005 11/10/2005 11/22/2005
11/28/2005

34 RESPONSE to Motion re: 33 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery.. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Brook, Richard) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
35 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Maas from Richard Brook dated 10/14/05: the Court will hold a telephone conf on 10/27/05 at 10 am, with Mr. Brook to intiate the call. (Signed by Judge Frank Maas on 10/17/05) (cd, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 10/27/2005 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Frank Maas. (cd, ). (Entered: 10/18/2005)
36 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Maas from Adela Santos dated 10/12/05: fact discovery is extended through 11/18/05. (Signed by Judge Frank Maas on 10/14/05) (cd, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Frank Maas : Telephone Conference held on 11/1/2005. Discovery issues addressed. (pl, ) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
37 ORDER that plntf shall produce to the court for in camera review any allegedly privileged documents, as further set forth in this document. The telephone conf set for 11/5 is cancelled. (Signed by Judge Frank Maas on 11/2/05) copie sent by chambers(cd, ) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
38 ORDER; on or before 11/8/05 pltf shall produce to the Court for in camera review any allegedly privileged documents. Defendant shall submit a response by 11/10/2005. Deft's application for leave to depose the pltf investigator is granted. Deft's application to limit the scope of remaining discovery is denied. Counsel shall agree on a revised schedule to govern pretrial proceedings, and submit it to the Court for approval. The telephone conference previously scheduled for 11/15/05 at 5 p.m. is cancelled. (Signed by Judge Frank Maas on 11/2/05) (kco, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
39 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Affidavit of Adela Santos in Support of Plaintiff EEOC's Objection to Disclosure of Documents Withheld Under a Claim of Privilege served on Teamsters Local 804 on 11/08/2005. Service was made by Fax. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Santos, Adela) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
40 RESPONSE re: 39 Affidavit of Service Other, re: in camera review of documents. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Brook, Richard) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
41 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Maas from Richard Brook dated 11/18/05 re aggred revised scheduling order: completionof discovery 11/18/05; dispositive pretrial motions 1/13/06; preliminary conf between counsel 3/8/06; other evidentiary pre trial motions 3/22/06; joint pre trial statement 4/4/06; final ptc 4/28/06. (Signed by Judge Frank Maas on 11/22/05) (cd, ) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
42 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas from Adela Santos dated 11/8/05 re: as the decision attached to Ms. Santos' affidavit confirms, the deliberate process privilege protects from disclosure documents

6 of 10

5/23/2007 12:34 PM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?239423978519232-L_3...

12/01/2005 12/02/2005
12/06/2005
12/13/2005 12/15/2005 01/03/2006 01/09/2006 01/18/2006 01/20/2006

which the agency head determines should be withheld. Here, there is no indication that anybody above the level of a trial attorney was involved. Accordingly, the privilege cannot be invoked by the EEOC. Exhibits A and C through F therefore must be disclosed. I note that exhibits C through F are forms which are entirely innocuous. Exhibit A, on the other hand, is an investigative menu which summarizes the facts and makes a recommendation. The EEOC may withhold the recommendation section of exhibit A on work-product grounds. The EEOC is directed to make this redaction and produce the documents within three business days. (Signed by Judge Frank Maas on 11/28/05) (db, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
43 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Letter dated December 1, 2005 to Hon. Frank Maas served on Teamsters Local 804 on December 1, 2005. Service was made by Fax. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Santos, Adela) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
44 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Mag. Judge Frank Maas from Adela Santos dated 12/1/05 re: a motion for reconsideration would be futile since there is no matter I overlooked in ruling. See Local Civil Rule 6.3. Accordingly, the application is denied. (Signed by Judge Frank Maas on 12/2/05) (pl, ) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
45 FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT MOTION to Set Aside or modify November 28, 2005 Order issued by the Hon. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas (LETTER). Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8)(Santos, Adela) Modified on 12/15/2005 (kg). (Entered: 12/06/2005)
46 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 45 MOTION to Set Aside or modify November 28, 2005 Order issued by the Hon. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas.. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Brook, Richard) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - NON-ECF DOCUMENT ERROR. Note to Attorney Adela Santos to MANUALLY RE-FILE Document No. 45 Letter. This document is not filed via ECF. (kg) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
48 LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from Adela Santos dated 12/6/05 re: requests that your Honor set aside or modify a 11/28/05 order issued by the Honorable Mag. Judge Frank Maas; w/ Exhibits. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(pl, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
47 ORDER that the Court finds no basis to disturb Judge Maas' findings with regard to production of the relevant documents. Plntf's motion is therefore denied in its entirety. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/6/06) copies sent by chambers.(cd, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
49 NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Paul A. Crotty. Judge Laura Taylor Swain no longer assigned to the case. (jeh, ) Modified on 1/20/2006 (jeh, ). (Entered: 01/20/2006)
50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Service# 2 Statement Explaining "Delayed" Filing)(Brook, Richard) (Entered: 01/20/2006)

7 of 10

5/23/2007 12:34 PM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?239423978519232-L_3...

01/20/2006 01/20/2006
01/20/2006 01/20/2006 02/01/2006 02/08/2006
02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/09/2006 02/14/2006

51 DECLARATION of Anthony Magrene in Support re: 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion.. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Brook, Richard) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
52 DECLARATION of Richard A. Brook in Support re: 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion.. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C part 1# 4 Exhibit C part 2# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit K# 13 Exhibit L# 14 Exhibit M# 15 Exhibit N# 16 Exhibit O)(Brook, Richard) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
53 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Brook, Richard) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
54 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion.. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Attachments: # 1 Addendum - Table of Contents# 2 Addendum 1# 3 Addendum 2)(Brook, Richard) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
55 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Paul A. Crotty from Adela P. Santos dated 1/31/06. ENDORSEMENT: EEOC's response is due on 2/7/06. Defendants reply is due on 2/16/06. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 2/1/06) (js, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
56 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Crotty from Adela P. Santos dated 02/08/2006 re: Request to file response to defnedant's motion for summary judgment by the close of business of today.ENDORSEMENT: Permission is granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 02/08/2006) (mov, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
57 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - DECLARATION of Adela Santos in Opposition re: 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion.. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Santos, Adela) Modified on 2/16/2006 (gf, ). (Entered: 02/08/2006)
58 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion.. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Santos, Adela) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
59 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion.. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Santos, Adela) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
60 DECLARATION of Adela Santos in Opposition re: 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion.. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Santos, Adela) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
61 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Paul A. Crotty from Richard A. Brook dated 2/10/06 re: Counsel for defendant writes to request that the Court reset the due date for Local 804's reply to 2/17/06 in light of the one-day extension granted to plaintiff EEOC. The time for Local 804 reply is adjourned to 2/17/06. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 2/14/06) (jco, ) (Entered: 02/14/2006)

8 of 10

5/23/2007 12:34 PM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?239423978519232-L_3...

02/17/2006 02/17/2006
02/17/2006 02/27/2006 03/13/2006
04/07/2006
04/12/2006
04/20/2006 04/21/2006 04/25/2006 10/10/2006

62 DECLARATION of Anthony Magrene (Supplemental) in Support re: 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion.. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Brook, Richard) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
63 DECLARATION of Richard A. Brook (Supplemental) in Support re: 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion.. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit P# 2 Exhibit Q# 3 Exhibit R# 4 Exhibit S# 5 Exhibit T# 6 Exhibit U# 7 Exhibit V)(Brook, Richard) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
64 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion.. Document filed by Teamsters Local 804. (Brook, Richard) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
65 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Paul A. Crotty from Adela Sanros dated 2/23/06 re: the EEOC's request to file a sur on reply is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 2/27/06) (db, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
66 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Paul A. Crotty from Richard A. Brook dated 3/9/06. ENDORSEMENT: The proposed revised scheduling order is adopted. The final pretrial conference will be scheduled in May 2006 by my Courtroom Deputy. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 3/13/06) (kco, ) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul A. Crotty : Remark: Oral Argument heard on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Judge's Decision is reserved (see transcript - court reporter: Joanne Mancari). Oral Argument held on 4/7/2006 re: 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion. filed by Teamsters Local 804,. (mov, ) (Entered: 04/08/2006)
67 MEMORANDUM ORDER: denying 50 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court finds that Local 804 had eighteen employees, which subjects Local 804 to a total potential compensatory and punitive damages liability of $50,000. 42 USC 1981(b)(3). In light of the limited monetary exposure and the complex questions that must be resolved on this imperfect record, the Court encourages the parties to engage in good faith negotiations to resolve their differences... (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 4/12/2006) (lb, ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
68 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 4/7/2006 before Judge Paul A. Crotty. (jar, ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
69 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 4/7/2006 @ 11:10 a.m. before Judge Paul A. Crotty. (lb, ) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul A. Crotty : All dates on CCMP are adjourned. A conference will be set for late May - early June for a status. Status Conference held on 4/25/06. (Tape #Courtflow) (mov, ) (Entered: 05/29/2006)
70 FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT NOTICE of Settlement Proposed Stipulated Order Submitted for Approval. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1)(Santos, Adela) Modified on 10/12/2006 (gf, ). (Entered: 10/10/2006)

9 of 10

5/23/2007 12:34 PM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?239423978519232-L_3...

10/12/2006 10/23/2006 12/01/2006

***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - NON-ECF DOCUMENT ERROR. Note to Attorney A. Santos to Manually Re-File Document No. 70 Letter. This document is not filed via ECF. (gf, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
71 STIPULATION AND ORDER; This Order resolves any and all claims raised in EEOC Charge Number 160-A2-00552 or in the complaint No. 04 cv 2409, filed by EEOC in this case....; (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 10/23/06) (djc, ) Modified on 10/24/2006 (djc, ). (Entered: 10/24/2006)
72 ORDER OF DISMISSAL: This matter having been settled by a stpulation and order dated 10/23/06. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case on ECF. Should any party violate the terms of the October 23, 2006 stipulation and order during the next 18 months, the other party may request that this case be reopened by making a request in writing directly to this Court. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 12/1/06) (js, ) (Entered: 12/05/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

05/23/2007 13:32:09

hs0328 Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:04-cv-02409-PAC-FM

7

Cost:

0.56

10 of 10

5/23/2007 12:34 PM


[CONTENT] EEOC | New York | Teamsters Local 804 | March 26, 2004 | District Court | the Southern District | New York ||| EEOC | Americans ||| EEOC | January 2006 | April ||| October 23, 2006 | 20,000 | UPS | ADA | 2.5 hours | ADA ||| eighteen months ||| 2008 [SUMMARY]  The EEOC's New York district office sued Teamsters Local 804 on March 26, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The EEOC's complaint alleged that the union violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it divulged to the complainant's co-workers that the complainant had a physical disability (AIDS).  The union filed a motion for summary judgment against the EEOC in January 2006, which was denied in April.  Ultimately, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on October 23, 2006 which stipulated that the defendant would pay the complainant $20,000 in damages, aid the complainant's transfer to another UPS branch, post a notice of compliance with the ADA, and provide 2.5 hours of ADA training. The settlement term was eighteen months. The docket sheet does not show any further enforcement; the case was presumably closed in 2008.