Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 27 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 1 of 5

1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO – #084965 (CA) JONATHAN T. PECK -- #12303 (VA)
2 EVANGELINA FIERRO HERNANDEZ -- #168879 (CA) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
3 COMMISSION San Francisco District Office
4 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94105
5 Telephone: (415) 625-5622 Facsimile: (415) 625-5657
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

12

)

Plaintiff,

)

13

)

v.

)

14

)

J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC., d/b/a

)

15 TACO BELL,

)

)

16

)

Defendant.

)

17 _______________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-4705-THE
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Civil Rights - Employment Discrimination
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

18

NATURE OF THE ACTION

19

This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and

20 Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the

21 basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Amanda Manning

22 (“Charging Party Manning”) who was adversely affected by such practices. Defendant

23 J.A. Sutherland Inc., d/b/a Taco Bell (“Sutherland”), subjected the Charging Party to

24 unlawful harassment based on her sex.

25

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

26

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

27 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to §706(f)(1) and

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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIMINATION

Page 1

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 27 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 2 of 5

1 (3) (“Title VII”) and §102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.

2

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

3 committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern

4 District of California, San Francisco division.

5

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

6

3. This action is appropriate for assignment to San Francisco because the

7 unlawful employment practices alleged were and are being committed within Lake

8 County, the employment records relevant to the unlawful practices are located in Lake

9 County, and because Defendant’s principal place of business is in Lake County.

10

PARTIES

11

4. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

12 (“Commission”) is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

13 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized

14 to bring this action by §706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, §2000-e5(f)(1) and (3).

15

5. Defendant Sutherland is a California company, doing business in the State

16 of California, in the County of Lake, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

17

6. At all relevant times, Defendant Sutherland has continuously been an

18 employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section

19 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000-e5(b), (g) and (h).

20

9. At all relevant times, Defendant Sutherland was the sole employer of

21 Charging Party for purposes of Title VII liability.

22

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

23

Violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act : Sex Discrimination, Sexual Harassment

24

Tangible Action, Constructive Discharge.

25

10. More than 30 days prior to the institution fo this lawsuit, Charging Party

26 filed her charge with Plaintiff Commission, alleging violations of Title VII by

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

28 fulfilled.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIMINATION

Page 2

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 27 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 3 of 5

1

11. Since December, 2003, when Charging Party was hired as an Area Coach

2 in Training/RGM Trainer, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at

3 its Ukiah and Clearlake, California, locations in violation of Section 703(a)(1). These

4 practices include, but not limited to, employees at the Clearlake franchise subjecting

5 Charging Party to sexual and gender harassment creating a hostile, abusive and

6 intimidating work environment by, among other things, calling her sexually derogatory

7 names, sexually harassing other female employees and customers, taunting and

8 physically intimidating Charging Party and subjecting Charging Party to pornographic

9 pictures. Despite Charging Party's efforts to complain to management about the

10 harassment the conduct continued and no prompt or effective action was taken to end

11 the harassment, leading to the tangible employment action of constructive discharge in

12 March 2004.

13

12. The effect of the actions complained of in Paragraph 11 above has been to

14 deprive the Charging Party of equal employment opportunities and has otherwise

15 adversely affected her status as an employee because of her sex.

16

13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 11 above

17 were intentional.

18

14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 11 above

19 were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of

20 the Charging Party.

21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

22

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

23

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

24 assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participation with Defendant, from

25 engaging in discrimination against its employees, including harassment based on sex.

26

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

27 programs which prohibit harassment based on sex and which serve to eradicate the

28 effects of their unlawful employment practices.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIMINATION

Page 3

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 27 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 4 of 5

1

C. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party harmed by providing

2 compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

3 employment practices complained of above, including, but not limited to, out-of-pocket

4 expenses such as medical care necessitated by Defendant’s unlawful conduct, in

5 amounts to be determined at trial.

6

D. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party by providing

7 compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

8 practices complained of above, including, but not limited to, emotional pain and

9 suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be

10 determined at trial.

11

E. Order Defendant to pay Charging Party by providing punitive damages

12 for the malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at

13 trial.

14

F. Grant such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper in the

15 public interest.

16

G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

17

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

18

Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff

19 hereby demands a jury trial.

20

Ronald S. Cooper

General Counsel

21

Gwendolyn Young Reams

22

Associate General Counsel

23

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission

24

1801 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20507

25

26

27 Date: ___October 30_______, 2006
28

___/s/ William R. Tamayo__________ WILLIAM R. TAMAYO Regional Attorney

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIMINATION

Page 4

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 27 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 5 of 5

1 2 Date: ___October 30_______, 2006 3 4 5 Date: ___October 30_______, 2006 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_/s/ Jonathan T. Peck_____________ JONATHAN T. PECK Supervisory Trial Attorney
__/s/ Evangelina Fierro Hernandez__ EVANGELINA FIERRO HERNANDEZ Senior Trial Attorney
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94105

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIMINATION

Page 5

 </s> Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 39 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 1 of 11

1 SUSAN SHER - #14210 (WA) LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN SHER
2 215 West Standley Street, Suite 8 Ukiah, California 95482
3 Telephone: (707) 463-1196 Facsimile: (707) 462-6258
4 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor
5

6

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
12 Plaintiff, and
13 AMANDA K. MANNING,
14 Plaintiff-Intervenor,
15 -v-
16 J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC., dba TACO BELL,
17 Defendant.
18

) ) ) Case No. C 06-4705 TEH ) ) ) COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION ) EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ) ) ) ) ) ) )

19 I.
20 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
21 1. Plaintiff-intervenor AMANDA K. MANNING, (“plaintiff-intervenor”) brings this action
22 for damages resulting from the discriminatory actions of defendant J.A. Sutherland, Inc., dba Taco
23 Bell (“Sutherland”). Plaintiff-intervenor alleges that defendant discriminated against her on the
24 basis of her sex, subjected her to a hostile work environment and failed to take appropriate steps to
25 prevent and remedy sexual harassment in the workplace. She further alleges that she was terminated
26 in retaliation for complaining about and taking steps to address the discrimination. This action is
27 brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 as
28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

-1-

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 39 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 2 of 11

1 well as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to correct these unlawful employment

2 practices on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to plaintiff-intervenor.

3

II.

4

JURY DEMAND

5

2. Plaintiff-intervenor hereby demands a jury trial as provided by Rule 38(a) of the Federal

6 Rules of Civil Procedure.

7

III.

8

JURISDICTION

9

3. This action is brought to redress violations of plaintiff-intervenor’s rights as guaranteed

10 by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., as amended and California

11 Government Code §12900, et seq. to secure protections against and redress her right to be free of

12 discrimination in employment. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

13 §1343(4) to secure the above-specified rights. This Court also has jurisdiction over the subject

14 matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 in that this civil action arises in part under the laws of the United

15 States of America.

16

4. Plaintiff-intervenor requests that the Court exercise pendent jurisdiction over her state law

17 claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), California Government

18 Code §12940 et seq. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), as all of her claims share common operative

19 facts and resolving all state and federal claims in a single action serves the interests of judicial

20 economy, convenience and fairness to the parties.

21

5. Costs and attorneys fees may be awarded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k) and California

22 Government Code §12965(b).

23

6. The unlawful employment practices alleged below were and are now being committed in

24 the County of Lake, California which is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District

25 Court for the Northern District of California.

26

IV.

27

PARTIES

28

7. Plaintiff-intervenor is a female who at all times relevant to the allegations of this

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

-2-

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 39 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 3 of 11

1 complaint was a resident of Lake County in this judicial district. She was subjected to a sexually

2 hostile work environment and was discriminated against on the basis of her sex.

3

8. Plaintiff EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (“plaintiff”) is an

4 agency of the United States of America charged with the administrative enforcement and

5 interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

6

9. At all relevant times, defendant Sutherland has been doing business in the City of

7 Clearlake, California, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

8

10. At all relevant times, defendant Sutherland has continuously been an employer engaged

9 in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b).

10

V.

11

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

12

11. On September 15, 2004, plaintiff-intervenor filed a charge with plaintiff against

13 defendant alleging employment discrimination based on sex. On October 6, 2005, plaintiff issued a

14 Determination finding that defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by

15 discriminating against plaintiff-intervenor because of her sex, female, by being subjected to a hostile

16 work environment resulting in her constructive discharge.

17

VI.

18

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

19

12. Prior to becoming employed with Sutherland, plaintiff-intervenor had worked for

20 various Taco Bell franchises for approximately eight years initially as a crew member and then

21 advancing to shift manager, assistant manager and ultimately a store manager.

22

13. On or about December 9, 2003, when she was 25 years old, plaintiff-intervenor was

23 hired as an “Area Coach In Training” by Sutherland which owned several Taco Bell franchises. At

24 the time of plaintiff-intervenor’s hire, Sutherland was aware that operations at its Clearlake,

25 California franchise were in dire need of improvement, particularly in the area of personnel

26 management. Plaintiff-intervenor agreed to take the Area Coach In Training position based on the

27 assurances of Sutherland Operations Manager Casey Burris that once plaintiff-intervenor was

28 successful in improving operations at the Clearlake franchise, she would be promoted to the position

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

-3-

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 39 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 4 of 11

1 of “Area Coach” which would result in a larger salary and benefits package.

2

14. Although plaintiff-intervenor was initially assured that her duties as Area Coach in

3 Training would not include direct supervision of staff, soon after she was hired for the position, the

4 Clearlake franchise lost its shift manager and plaintiff-intervenor was directed to take over duties of

5 store manager which included personnel matters. The crew at the Clearlake franchise consisted

6 mostly of young men in their late teens and early 20's. Soon after assuming her new position,

7 plaintiff-intervenor realized that the facility had significant personnel problems including but not

8 limited to:

9

a) male employees identifying young female employees by sexually derogatory names;

10

b) employees informing a 19 year old female night manager of their intention to blow up the

11 restaurant with a bomb, causing the manager to contact law enforcement and later resign;

12

c) employees coming to work under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol or consuming

13 these substances during working hours;

14

d) employees’ theft of cash receipts, food and merchandise; and

15

e) after hours parties attended by minor female employees at which sexual behavior was

16 exhibited and drugs and alcohol consumed.

17

15. Due to the magnitude of these personnel problems, plaintiff-intervenor was required to

18 the spend the majority of her time at the Clearlake franchise. On almost a nightly basis, plaintiff-

19 intervenor conferred by telephone with Burris and described the problems at the franchise. She

20 relayed that she was concerned for the safety and well-being of the young female employees. She

21 also expressed to Burris that she felt physically threatened and intimidated by the behavior of the

22 employees. The concerns that she expressed included but were not limited to:

23

a) employees referring to her as a “bitch” and using other obscene labels to her face as well

24 as behind her back within hearing distance;

25

b) employees physically cornering her and taunting her; and

26

c) male employees treating female employees and customers in a demeaning manner.

27

16. In addition, plaintiff-intervenor informed Burris that employees frequently failed to

28 report to work, treated customers rudely, spit at each other and continued to steal food and

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

-4-

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 39 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 5 of 11

1 merchandise from the franchise.

2

17. With the permission of Burris, plaintiff-intervenor terminated the employment of a few

3 of the more problematic employees. She implored Burris to allow her to replace the entire crew,

4 however, since she feared that the remaining crew members were angry about the loss of their co-

5 workers who had been terminated and might retaliate against her. Burris refused to do so, claiming

6 that he could not replace the entire crew. Plaintiff-intervenor was therefore forced to work with

7 employees who continued to present serious performance problems, who were angry at her for

8 terminating the employment of their friends and continued to create a hostile environment in which

9 she was forced to work.

10

18. Although Burris did not dispute the allegations of plaintiff-intervenor and despite

11 plaintiff-intervenor’s attempts to get corporate management to visit the site, at no time during her

12 employment tenure, did Burris or any other Sutherland employee visit the Clearlake franchise in

13 order to investigate and remedy plaintiff-intervenor’s concerns.

14

19. On the morning of March 24, 2004, plaintiff-intervenor entered her locked office at the

15 Clearlake franchise and noted a conspicuous packet of photographs left on her computer keyboard.

16 She opened the packet and found photographs of several of the Clearlake franchise employees at an

17 after hours party. These photographs contained several close-up shots of male genitals and males

18 posing with their pants pulled down. The photographs indicated that both young men and women

19 were present at the party including a minor female employee who was photographed licking the

20 nipple of a male employee.

21

20. Plaintiff-intervenor had recently terminated the employment of three of the men in the

22 photographs who had reacted with anger and hostility towards her. Plaintiff-intervenor is informed

23 and on that basis believes that the photographs were left on her computer keyboard by at that time

24 current employees who intended that she view the photographs. Plaintiff-intervenor is also informed

25 and on that basis believes that by leaving the photographs for her, the employees intended to

26 personally attack her for reprimanding them and terminating the employment of their friends.

27

21. Plaintiff-intervenor was horrified and upset after viewing the photographs. She was also

28 exasperated from her ongoing unsuccessful attempts to get Sutherland management to address the

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

-5-

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 39 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 6 of 11

1 problems of workplace harassment. She therefore immediately faxed a letter of resignation to the

2 corporate office indicating that her last day of work would be March 30, 2004. In the letter, she also

3 stated that she would do everything possible to transfer duties and complete her tasks before that

4 date.

5

22. A few hours later, having received no response from any representative of Sutherland,

6 plaintiff-intervenor telephone the home office of Burris and described the content of the photographs

7 to Burris’s sister, also a Sutherland employee. Soon thereafter, plaintiff-intervenor spoke by

8 telephone for Burris for several hours. At that time, she reiterated her descriptions of her intolerable

9 work environment which had culminated in the appearance of the photographs on her computer

10 keyboard. Burris jokingly commented to plaintiff-intervenor that he hoped that the males in the

11 photographs were “well-endowed” so that they would not be embarrassed. Burris expressed his

12 desire that plaintiff-intervenor remain with the company and pledged that he “would make things

13 right” by placing her at another franchise location. Burris also directed plaintiff-intervenor to take

14 some time off to consider his offer.

15

23. During that same telephone conversation, Burris also suggested that he and plaintiff-

16 intervenor meet at the Clearlake franchise the following day so that they could terminate the

17 employment of the remaining offending employees. Plaintiff-intervenor, however, refused to return

18 to the site of the harassment; Burris and plaintiff-intervenor therefore agreed to meet at another

19 nearby Sutherland owned franchise in order to discuss the future of plaintiff-intervenor’s

20 employment.

21

24. Later that same day, however, plaintiff-intervenor telephone Burris and explained that

22 she wished to seek legal advice and have sufficient time to recover from the recent traumatic events

23 prior to meeting with Burris. Plaintiff-intervenor therefore requested that she and Burris cancel the

24 meeting that had been set up for the following day. Following that conversation, plaintiff-intervenor

25 understood that she was on an administrative leave. She anticipated that she would return to work

26 on or about March 30, 2004.

27

25. With no further conversation having taken place between plaintiff-intervenor and Burris,

28 on or about March 30, 2004, the assistant manager of the Clearlake franchise informed plaintiff-

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

-6-

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 39 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 7 of 11

1 intervenor that he had received a Federal Express envelope from Sutherland that contained plaintiff-

2 intervenor’s final paycheck; the check was dated March 29, 2004. Plaintiff-intervenor was forced

3 to appear at the Clearlake site in order to pick up the check. The Federal Express envelope

4 contained no written explanation but rather, only a final paycheck that indicated that plaintiff-

5 intervenor had been terminated from her employment.

6

VII.

7

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DISCRIMINATION IN

VIOLATION OF TITLE VII (42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.)

8

26. Plaintiff-intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference here each and every

9

allegation stated in Paragraphs 1 through 25, above, as though fully stated here.

10

27. Between December 9, 2003 and March 29, 2004, Sutherland engaged in unlawful

11

practices at its Clearlake, California facility in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

12

§2000e-2(a)(1). These practices included knowingly assigning plaintiff-intervenor to work in an

13

abusive, hostile and discriminatory environment.

14

28. The unlawful employment practices of Sutherland further include the failure and refusal

15

to respond to, investigate, or effectively address the complaints of plaintiff-intervenor concerning

16

this hostile work environment.

17

29. The effect of these employment practices has been to deprive plaintiff-intervenor of

18

equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee based on

19

sex.

20

30. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct, plaintiff-intervenor has suffered and will

21

continue to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to

22

her damage in an amount according to proof.

23

31. Defendant’s conduct as described above was willful, knowing and intentional and done

24

with reckless indifference to the federally-protected rights of plaintiff-intervenor; accordingly,

25

plaintiff-intervenor seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to

26

proof.

27

32. Plaintiff-intervenor has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney fees.

28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

-7-

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 39 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 8 of 11

1 Plaintiff-intervenor is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees and prays

2 leave of court to amend this complaint when the amounts are more fully known.

3

VIII.

4

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: RETALIATION IN

VIOLATION OF TITLE VII (42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.)

5

33. Plaintiff-intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference here each and every

6

allegation stated in Paragraphs 1 through 32, above, as though fully stated here.

7

34. On the day she received the pornographic photographs, March 29, 2004, plaintiff-

8

intervenor had initially notified Sutherland of her intention to resign effective March 30, 2004. On

9

March 29, 2004, Sutherland Operations Manager, Casey Burris convinced plaintiff-intervenor to

10

remain in the employ of Sutherland while Sutherland attempted to improve the working conditions

11

of plaintiff-intervenor. Plaintiff-intervenor then informed Burris of her desire to seek legal advice.

12

She also expressed her need to remain on administrative leave for a few days before she felt

13

emotionally strong enough to meet with Burris in order to terminate the employees involved in the

14

pornographic photo incident.

15

35. While plaintiff-intervenor was on administrative leave, with no further conversation

16

between plaintiff-intervenor and Burris, plaintiff-intervenor received her final paycheck from

17

Sutherland and understood that her employment had been terminated by Sutherland.

18

36. Sutherland terminated the employment of plaintiff-intervenor in retaliation for plaintiff-

19

intervenor’s opposition to Sutherland’s discriminatory employment practices and stating her

20

intention to seek legal advice in order to make a charge or participate in a proceeding under Title

21

VII. This retaliation was in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a).

22

37. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct, plaintiff-intervenor has suffered and will

23

continue to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to

24

her damage in an amount according to proof.

25

38. Defendant’s conduct as described above was willful, knowing and intentional and done

26

with reckless indifference to the federally-protected rights of plaintiff-intervenor; accordingly,

27

plaintiff-intervenor seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to

28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

-8-

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 39 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 9 of 11

1 proof.

2

39. Plaintiff-intervenor has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney fees.

3 Plaintiff-intervenor is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees and prays

4 leave of court to amend this complaint when the amounts are more fully known.

5

IX.

6

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: SEX HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 12940, ET SEQ.

7

40. Plaintiff-intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference here each and every

8

allegation stated in Paragraphs 1 through 39, above, as though fully stated here.

9

41. During the course of plaintiff-intervenor’s employment, defendant created and allowed

10

to exist a sexually hostile environment and discriminated against and harassed plaintiff-intervenor

11

on the basis of plaintiff-intervenor’s sex. Such discrimination and harassment was in violation of

12

Government Code §12940 et seq. and the public policy embedded therein, and has resulted in

13

damage and injury to plaintiff-intervenor as alleged herein.

14

42. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct, plaintiff-intervenor has suffered and will

15

continue to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to

16

her damage in an amount according to proof.

17

43. Defendant’s conduct as described above was willful, knowing and intentional and done

18

with reckless indifference to the state-protected rights of plaintiff-intervenor; accordingly, plaintiff-

19

intervenor seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.

20

44. Plaintiff-intervenor has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney fees.

21

Plaintiff-intervenor is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees and prays

22

leave of court to amend this complaint when the amounts are more fully known.

23

X.

24

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA

25

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940(i)

26

45. Plaintiff-intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference here each and every

27 allegation stated in Paragraphs 1 through 44, above, as though fully stated here.

28

46. At all times mentioned in this complaint, California Government Code Section 12940(i)

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

-9-

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 39 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 10 of 11

1 was in full force and effect and was binding on defendant. This subsection requires defendant to

2 take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring. As

3 alleged above, defendant violated this section by failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to

4 prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.

5

47. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct, plaintiff-intervenor has suffered and will

6 continue to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to

7 her damage in an amount according to proof.

8

48. Defendant’s conduct as described above was willful, knowing and intentional and done

9 with reckless indifference to the state-protected rights of plaintiff-intervenor; accordingly, plaintiff-

10 intervenor seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.

11

49. Plaintiff-intervenor has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney fees.

12 Plaintiff-intervenor is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees and prays

13 leave of court to amend this complaint when the amounts are more fully known.

14

XI.

15

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 12940(f)

16

50. Plaintiff-intervenor realleges and incorporates by reference here each and every

17

allegation stated in Paragraphs 1 through 49, above, as though fully stated here.

18

51. Defendant’s treatment of plaintiff-intervenor was in violation of Government Code

19

Section 12940(f) which prohibits retaliation against anyone who has opposed practices proscribed

20

by the California FEHA or who has sought to file a complaint pursuant to the California FEHA.

21

52. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct, plaintiff-intervenor has suffered and will

22

continue to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to

23

her damage in an amount according to proof.

24

53. Defendant’s conduct as described above was willful, knowing and intentional and done

25

with reckless indifference to the state-protected rights of plaintiff-intervenor; accordingly, plaintiff-

26

intervenor seeks an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.

27

54. Plaintiff-intervenor has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney fees.

28

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

-10-

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 39 Filed 11/14/2006 Page 11 of 11

1 Plaintiff-intervenor is presently unaware of the precise amount of these expenses and fees and prays

2 leave of court to amend this complaint when the amounts are more fully known.

3

XII.

4

RELIEF REQUESTED

5

WHEREFORE, plaintiff-intervenor prays this Court for the relief set forth below:

6

1. For back pay and employment benefits in order to make plaintiff-intervenor whole for

7 injuries sustained on account of defendant’s acts;

8

2. For front pay to compensate plaintiff-intervenor for the future losses occasioned by

9 defendant’s acts;

10

3. For emotional distress damages;

11

4. For punitive damages according to proof at trial;

12

5. For interest on all back pay and employment benefits awarded to make plaintiff-

13 intervenor whole and to deter defendant from engaging in discriminatory activities in the future;

14

6. For reasonable attorney’s fees, cost and disbursements occasioned by this litigation; and

15

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

16

17 DATED: November 13, 2006

LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN SHER

18

19

By: /s/ Susan Sher

Susan Sher

20

Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenor,

AMANDA K. MANNING

21

XIII.

22

JURY DEMAND

23

Plaintiff-intervenor demands trial by jury of all her claims and causes of action so triable.

24

DATED: November 13, 2006

LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN SHER

25

26

By: /s/ Susan Sher

27

Susan Sher

Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenor,

28

AMANDA K. MANNING

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

-11-

 </s> JS 44 - N<l. CAl..!F .iRe".4I97)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

GINAL

The JS.-44 civil cover sheet and the '.'nforrnatiOn con!~:ned herein neither replace ~~. supplement the filing and service of pi:ad~: papers ~s required

I .C--- by law, except as provIded by local rules of court. Tms farm, approved by the Juolc!al Conference of the United States in seP?:Dr 1te.4.' is reqUlrad for the

use of the Clerk of Court IOf the purpose of initiating the eivii docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE TWO)

~:

L(a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS}

'- ()

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500
Francisco, CA 94105-4000

J. A. Sutherland, Inc. d/b/a Taco Be i Steven B McCarthy (Registered Agent) 100 Rio Street, Red Bluff, CA 96080

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FiRST LISTED PLAiNT!FF
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLA!NT1FF CASES)

COUNTY OF RESiDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT
{IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: !N LAND CONDEMNATlON CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF THE
Tehama TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Ie) ATTORNEYS !FlRM NAME. ADDRESS. AND TELEPHONE NUMBER\

ATTORNEYS {IF KNOWN}

Evangdina Fierro Hemandez, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 941 O~-4_0....;·O....;O__(,-4_1__5\:..)_6_2_5..;-.:;,.5.:;,.6.2...2_ _ _.,--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.__________......_________. ~

II. BASIS OF JURiSDICTION (PLACEAW,I'"iNONE60XONLYl

m 1 U.S Government
l'ljaintiff
02: U$ Govemmer,i
Defendant

C] 3 Fadera! Question {V,S. Governmeiit Not a Party,
o 4 Diversity
(IndIcate Cilizenship of Parties in Item iii)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES ,FLACEAW,I'"fNONE 80X FOR

PLAiNTIFF
{For diversity cases only)

ANDONc: 80XFOR DEFENDANT)

CiH£en of Tilts S1ate Citizen of Another State

PTF DEF 01 01
02: 02:

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

Incorporated or PrinCipal Place of 8us:r.ess !n.Th~s State
Incorporated and Principal Place of Bus:ness !~ Another S~ate
F ore\gn Nation

PTF 04
0 5
C]6

DEF 04
0 5
06

IV. ORIGIN
iZl10rig:nai Proceeding

02 Removed fro", State Court

(PLACE AN ':/" iN ONE BOX ONL Y)

C]3 Remanded from

o 4 Reinstated 0'

Appellate Court

Reopened

05 Transfe,ed from
Another district (specify)

06 Mu!tidist,;ct
Litigation

07 Appeal 10
District Judge from Magjstrale Judgment

V. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN "./ n IN ONE BOX ONL Y)

CONTRACT

TORTS

011.0 :nsur.mc€ 0120 i'I.ar.J\8 0150 Mi!!er}\cl 01.«J Negoikll:iic instrument
01511 ~ 01 O;erpa~l & ~nfo...cert.9."lt of Judgment
0151 MediClre Act 0152 Re(XlVe<y 01 Def::j1,;!!od
stU'0e111loons {£Xd Vett.->!'a:ns} 0153 R!i;CO'Je<y01 <M>.mayr;.m!
of Vet wan's Bef~f:ts 01W S:OCl<i':okJers SU'IS Cl100 Olha' Contract 0195 Cant..cl Product Liabi'ity

iPERSONAL INJURY 0310 Airplane 0315 Airp:ane P,oduct
UabiIity
D;!2!! Assault Ubel & Sland<>'
03:!3 !'adem! Err:ployers
L,abii:ly 034ll !.1arine O~ MaTir,,, PrODUC:
liabiHy
CJ350 MotOf Vehicle
OJSO MOIO( Vehicle
Produc! Uabiit:y 03&l Olner p"""""" injury

PERSONAL INJURY
o 3E2 P<lIWf13! Injury
Moo !..~a:practice 0365 Personalln,lllY
o Produc! Liatli!iiy J8I! Aslles!C5 Pe<sonal injury Product Uabi!ity
oPERSONAL PROPERTY 37G Other F.dUd
o 311 Tru,,~ in Lending
Cl3&l other Pa,,;ona!
o PfCperty Damage 3IJS Pmpe!ly Daml!j'le Prodvcl liarnl'ty

REAL PROPERTY

ClvIL RIGHTS

if :....; ..~ Lar.dCmciemroton
I Ig~~"1 0229 Foreclosure

02:13 Rent L2ase & E'jocl~
D2411 Tons 1o Land

g:;t::

0245 Tort ProduCt,Lisbility

~n.,r Civil RiGhts

0200 Ali OlMr Re21 props~\

PRISONER PETITIONS
051il Melia> to Vacale Se~lenoo Hab."" Corpus:
0531> General Om Doom Penalry
o 54Il 1.13'10"'005 8. Q1!,,...
0550 Civi! Righls
0S55 !""Son Conom""

FORFeITUREJPENALTV

BANKRUPTCY

CJ 6H) Agricl.'l:ure
0$20 Other Froc <I Dr';G 0625 Drug Reiate~ Sa;,""" 01
o Property 21 USC 881 t30 Liquor Laws

0640 RR 8. ;rock

06liO Airllne Regs

CJ 600 Occupational

n

$2letyIHealt'l

690) ():i)pr

LABOR

OillAppeat28 USC ~58 0,1<3 \"'!h~1
28 USC l57
PROPERTY RIGHTS
CJI!2O Copyrights
0S30 "alen! CJ5:Wlmdem3rk
SOCIAL SECURITY

CJ 710 Fair LabOr Stand.-m:is Act
C]12O latlCrlMgrr.~ Re'iatiOils
t:.:}7:lO L"oofiMllml ReportinG 8.
DlStiosUi@Act
CJ74tl Railway Labc< Act
C'J190 Other Labor Utiga!~on C]791 EO'lpiRat Inc Secu"ity
Act

0a61 HIA (1395;1)
Cl8n2 Biack Lung {B,23)
ClI!63 D:WCIDIVVW {405tgj)
o ilS4 SSiD Title XVI
Cl 865 RSi ("OOiS»
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
0870 T~es 'US Plaintiff Of
o DeleOOanI 871 IRS - TNrd Party 26 USC 7609

OTHER STATUTES

o 400 &"'6 Reapportioo",,,,,!

0410 Anlit.".;s!
o 430 ""'''''' and BankJr" o 400 Corwnerc<3l!CC Kales/etc o ~ De:xma:Jon o 470 Rac.'''''''' In:luencro and o Cor~pl Oq'janlzatioos
810 Selective Servica
o S5U Se<>J<i:ieslCommoo"jesi

;:"cl1ange
D 875 Ct15iDfn.ef Cha{;enge

,2 USC 3410

801 AgncuJiL'fa' Acts

892 Economic StabiiizE1:or.

.~

CJ 8G3 E;nj,ronmerrtat Ma~ers

"""'-g, 0!;94

AiiocaN>n Act

o _F~.,. oi Ir.fexmalion

o lid IlOO i\;JpeaI 01 fee !)Bterrr:lna~i1 Un@r
o Equal Access tc JI}stice 950 Cc<'IsliMO'1.i:!y of Sl:;te

Stalu!es
o 800 Olner Slatuiory Adjons

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE US CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FiUNG AND WRITE BRIEF STATEME.NT OF CAUSE. DO NOT CITE
JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSfTY} This action is under Title vn (1964)/Titic I (l99 J) of the Civil Rights Act to correct
unlawful employment practices on the basis of her sex and to provide appropriate relief.

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

o CHECK IF lHS IS ACLASS ACTION
UNDER FRCE 23

DEMAND $

DCHECK YES only if demanded in complaint
~\ JURY DEMAND: iZlVES 0 NO

VHl. RELATED CASE{S) IF ANY PLEASE REFER TO CMt L.R. 3-12 CONCERNING IEQ~IREME ~T TO FILE "NOTICE OF RELATED CASE".

IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (CIVIL L.R. 3-2) (PLACE A ",/" IN ONE BOX O~Y) e&\SANlRANCISCOfOAKLAND ClSAN JOSE

ORIGINAL ,i" i"

1 WILLIAM R TAMAYO - #084965 (CA)

JONATHANT. PECK-- #12303 (VA)

2 EVANGELINA FIERRO HERl'.JANDEZ -- #168879 (CA)

EQUAL E!\1PLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 3 COMMISSION
San Francisco District Office

lI 'I
I
I

4 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94105

I' /'\ 'l

5 Telephone: (415) 625-5622 6 FacsImile: (415) 625-5657

1/ Y' t' \ f /,'\; /(:!""I

\

~

Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportu~it}'CO~iSSion

7

11

~

,;

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

,I

10 j'

;,

11 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNlrt
COMMISSION,
12 Plaintiff,
13 v.
14
J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC., d/b/a
15 "TACO BELL,
if
1,£{'

COMPLAINT Civil Rights - Employment DiscrimInation
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

(
/

Defendant.

117

18

NATURE OF THE ACTION

19

This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and

20 Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the

21 basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Amanda Manning

22 ('"Charging Party Manning") who was adversely affected by such practices, Defendant

23 J.A. Sutherland Inc., dlbl a Taco Bell ("Sutherland"), subjected the Charging Party to

24 unlawful harassment based on her sex.

25

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

26

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

27 1337/ 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to §706(f)(1) and

28 (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.s.c. §2000e-5(f)(1) and

COMPLAINT FOR mSCRIMINATION

Pagel

1 (3) ("Title VII") and §102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 Us.c. §1981a.

2 .

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

3 committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern

4 District of California, San Francisco division.

5 I!

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

I!

6

3. This action is appropriate for assignment to San Francisco because the

7 unlawful employment practices alleged were and are being committed within Lake

8 County, the employment records relevant to the unlawful practices are located in Lake

9 J County, and because Defendant's principal place of business is in Lake County.
H

10

PARTIES

11

4. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

12 ("Commission") is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

13 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized
14 I! to bring this action by §706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, §2000-e5(f)(1) and (3).

15

5. Defendant Sutherland is a California company, doing business in the State

16 of California, in the County of Lake, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

17

6. At all relevant times, Defendant Sutherland has continuously been an

18 i employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section
I
19 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.s.c. §2000-e5(b), (g) and (h).

20

9. At all relevant times, Defendant Sutherland was the sole employer of

21 Charging Party for purposes of Title VII liability.

22

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

23

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

24 Violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act .: Sex Discrimination, Sexual Harassment

25 IIII

10. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging

26 :i
II Party filed her charge with Plaintiff Commission, alleging violations of Title VII by
27 'j

Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been 28

fulfilled.

COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIMINATION

Page 2

I'
i
I

1

11. Since at least December, 2003, Defendants have engaged in unlawful

2 practices of sex discrimination, in violation §703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.s.c. §2000e-2(a), by

3. subjecting the Charging Party to a sexually hostile, abusive, intimidating and offensive :
4 work environment which culminated in a tangible employment action.

5

12. The effect of the actions complained of in Paragraph 11 above has been to

6 deprive the Charging Party of equal employment opportunities and has otherwise

7 adversely affected her status as an employee because of her sex.

13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 11 above

9 were intentional.

10

14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 11 above

11 were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of

12 the Charging Party. 13 1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

14

Wherefore, the Conunission respectfully requests that this Court:

15

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

16 assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participation with Defendant, from

17 engaging in discrimination against its employees, including harassment based on sex.

18

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

19' programs which prohibit harassment based on sex and which serve to eradicate the

20 effects of their unlawful employment practices.

21

c. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party harmed by providing

22 compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

23 employment practices complained of above, including, but not limited to, out-of-pocket

24 expenses such as medical care necessitated by Defendant's unlawful conduct, in

25 amounts to be determined at trial.

26

D. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party by providing

27 compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

28 practices complained of above, including, but not limited to, emotional pain and

11
II COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIM1NAT10N

Page 3

1 suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be

2 determined at trial.

3

E. Order Defendant to pay Charging Party by providing punitive damages

41' for the malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at

5 trial.

6

F. Grant such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper in the

7 public interest.

G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

9

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

10

Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff

11 hereby demands a jury trial.

12

James L. Lee

Acting General Counsel

13

Gwendolyn Young Reams

14

Associate General Counsel

15

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission

16

1801 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20507

17

18

19

20 Date:

2006

21

22

A

23 Date: &lA,\ Q.

,2006

24

25

26 Date:

2006

27/ 28
11
II
COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIMINATION

Page 4

1 2 3 4 5 6' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 "1'6 1:,: 17 18 19
20 21 22 23
24 II
25
26 27 28
.: COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIMINATION
II

Equal Em'ployment Opportunity Commisslon San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94105
Page 5

 </s> Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 51 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 1 of 12

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO - #084%5 (CA)

LIL JONATHAN T. PECK -- #I2303 VA
EVANGELINA FIERRO HERNA

Z -- #I68879

(CA)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

San Francisco District Office

350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500

San Francisco, California 94105

Evan~-.elina.Hernandez@eeoc.g;ov
Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
SUSAN SHER-14210 WA LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN SHER 215 West Standley Street, Suite 8 Ukiah, California 95482 Telephone: (707) 463-1196 Fascimile: (707) 462-6258
Attorney for Plaintiff-IntervenorAmanda K. Manning
JEFFEREY N. DALY - #59034 (CA)
P.O. Box 246 Hidden Valley Lake, California Telephone: (707) 987-9082 Facsimile: (707) 987-0982
CATHERINE L. MANSKE - #I83815 (CA)
GORDON & REES LLP 655 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95825 Telephone: (916) 565-2900 Fascimile: (916) 920-4402
Attorneys For: Defendant J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC. DBA TACO BELL

Consent Decree 3:06<v-4705-TEH

Page 1

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 51 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 2 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNlTY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and
AMANDA MANNING,

Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-4705-TEH CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiff-Intervenor

J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC., d/b/a TACO BELL,

Defendant.

1

Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission" or "EEOC") brought this lawsuit under Title VII of 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 harassment and to make whole Ms. Amanda Manning who was allegedly aggrieved by unlawful practices. Plaintiff EEOC alleged that defendant J.A. SUTHERLAND, INC., d/b/a TACO BELL (hereinafter"the Company" or "Defendant") unlawfully subjected Ms. Manning to a sexually hostile work environment. Plaintiff -Intervenor Amanda Manning intervened in the lawsuit alleging both federal and state claims of discrimination. Plaintiff EEOC and the Intervenor are collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs." Defendant has answered the complaints and denied all the allegations.
In the interest of resolving this matter and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Commission, Intervenor, and Defendant

Consent Decree 3:06cv4705-TEH

Page 2

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 51 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 3 of 12

(hereinafater "the Parties") have agreed that the above-captioned lawsuit should be

finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree. This Consent Decree shall not

constitute an adjudication and/or a finding on the merits of the lawsuit.

This Consent Decree resolves all claims arising out of EEOC Charge No. 370-

2004-02927 and the complaints filed in the lawsuit. This Consent Decree also resolves all claims

for attorneys fees and costs that were made or could have been made by the Commission and the

Intervenor, and the Defendant in this lawsuit. This Consent Decree does not, however, resolve

any future charges or charges that may be pending with the EEOC other than the charge and

complaints specifically referenced in this paragraph.

This Consent Decree comprises the full and exclusive agreement of the Parties. No

waiver, modification or amendment of any provision of this Consent Decree shall be effective

unless made in writing and approved by all the Parties and the Court.

The Court has reviewed this Consent Decree in light of the pleadings, the record herein,

and now approves this Consent Decree. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

DECREED:

I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Parties to this lawsuit. This

Court will retain jurisdiction over this Decree for all purposes until the expiration of

Parties' obligations as set forth herein.

2. This Consent Decree is final and binding upon the Parties, their successors and assigns.

11. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

I
3. Sexual Harassment:Defendant, and its officers, agents, managers (including supervisory

I
employees), successors and assigns, is enjoined from: (a) discriminating against persons

~

on the basis of sex in the terms and conditions of employment; (b) engaging in or be a

I

~

party to any action, policy or practice that is intended to, or is known to them, to have the

effect of harassing or intimidating any employee on the basis of sex; or (c) creating,

facilitating or permitting, to the extent known to them, the existence of a work

Consent Decree 3:06cv4705-TEH

Page 3

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 51 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 4 of 12

environment hostile to female employees. 111. MONETARY RELIEF 5. Defendant shall pay the total sum of $48,000.00 (the "Settlement Payment") as damages,
to Amanda Manning as set forth below. a. The Settlement Payment will be paid as damages. b. Defendant shall report the Settlement Payment by issuance of IRS Form 1099 to
Amanda Manning. c. Defendant shall pay the Settlement Payment as follows:
1. Within twenty (20) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, the Defendant will issue 1) a check for the amount of $48,000.00 made jointly payable to Amanda Manning and the Offices of Susan Sher. Defendant shall make payment in the form of a business check, cashier's check, or certified check. Defendant will mail the check to Ms. Sher at 215 West Standley Street, Suite 8, Ukiah, California 95482, and mail a copy of the check to Evangelina Fierro Hernandez, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94105. d. Payment of monetary relief to Ms. Manning and her attorney shall be contingent on the execution of a separate release by Ms. Manning. e. Entire Consideration. The Plaintiffs agree that the foregoing amounts shall constitute the entire monetary consideration provided to the Plaintiffs under this Consent Decree and that Plaintiff Intervenor, and her respective attorney, will not seek any m h e r compensation for any other claimed damage, cost, or attorney's fees in connection with the matters encompassed by this Consent Decree. IV. SPECIFIC INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 6. Zero-Tolerance Defendant affirms the following"Statement of Zero-Tolerance Policy and Equality Objectives": Defendant is firmly committed to maintaining a zero-tolerance

Consent Decree 3:06-CV-4705-TEH

Page 4

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 51 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 5 of 12

policy concerning discriminatory harassment and retaliation against

individuals who report harassment in the company's workplace; to

swiftly and firmly respond to any acts of harassment and retaliation

of which the company becomes aware; to imposing appropriate

discipline designed to strongly deter future acts of harassment or

retaliation; and to actively monitor its workplace in order to ensure

tolerance, respect and dignity for all employees.

This paragraph does not create any individual contractual or common law causes of

action or other rights that would not otherwise exist under statute.

7. EEO and Harassment Policies

Defendant shall revise to the extent necessary its EEO & harassment policies,

within forty-five (45) days of signing the Consent Decree, such that the policies:

(i) include definitions of discriminatory harassment, with specific reference to

harassment based on sex; (ii) include examples to supplement the definitions of

harassment based on sex; (iii) provide for appropriate discipline andfor corrective

action for incidents of discriminatoryharassment; (iv) include strong non-

retaliation language with examples to supplement the definition of retaliation; (v)

provide for appropriate discipline for incidents of retaliation designed to deter

I

future acts of retaliation; (vi) provide that complaints of harassment andor

retaliation will be accepted irrespectiveof whether they are made verbally or in

writing; (vii) provide a reasonable timetable for commencing an investigation after

a complaint is made or received and for appropriate remedial action, if warranted,

I

i ~

to be taken upon conclusion of an investigation; and (viii) indicate that, promptly

upon the conclusion of the investigation of a complaint, the Company will

communicate to the complaining party the results of the investigation and the

remedial actions taken or proposed, if any.

b. Defendant shall effectivelydisseminate its revised policies and procedures

Consent Decree 3:06cv-4705-TEH

Page 5

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 51 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 6 of 12

8.
119 9.
10.

by: 1. Distributing copies of the policy to all new Clearlake employees
within 30 days of its adoption; ii. Giving a copy of the policy to and reviewing the policy with all
new employees upon the employees' hire. c. The Company will submit a copy of the revised EEO and harassment
policies to EEOC at the same time it distributes said policies to its Clearlake, California employees. Complaint Procedure. Defendant shall maintain a complaint procedure designed to encourage employees to come forward with complaints about violations of its harassment policy. As part of the policy, Defendant shall provide its employees with convenient, confidential and reliable mechanisms for reporting incidents of harassment and retaliation. The complaint procedure and harassment policy shall notify employees that they can lodge a complaint with their immediate supervisor, human resources, or any corporate official. Contact information for human resources and corporate officials shall be posted in the policy. Contact information for the human resources and corporate officials also shall be posted in a prominent place at the business location in Clearlake, California. Distribution of Anti-Harassment Policy. Within forty five (45) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall issue to all employees, supervisors and managers at the Clearlake location its EEO and harassment policy and each such person shall be asked to sign an acknowledgment that they have received and read the policy. The same acknowledgment shall be required of all newly hired employees at the start of their employment. train in^ of Em~lovees. Within sixty (60) days of entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall provide three (3) hours of anti-harassment training to all Clearlake employees. A second training shall

Consent Decree 3:06-~~4705-TEH

Page 6

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 51 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 7 of 12

occur no later than May 15,2008. A third training shall occur no later than May 15, 2009. The purpose of said training shall be to give participants an understanding of harassment issues, particularlysexual harassment, including but not limited to what constitutes sexual harassment, sources of legal protection for sexual harassment victims, the employees' obligation to report sexual harassment, the employer's obligation to take preventive, investigative and remedial action with respect to harassment complaints, and to review company policies (including discipline policies) and practices related to sexual harassment and retaliation with Company employees. Defendant shall retain records of the training programs, copies of any materials distributed during the training and identifllng persons who attended the training. Defendant will provide a copy of these records, and the training materials to the Commission within thirty (30) days of completion of each training. I 11. Expungement of Records and Disclosure of Information Reparding Amanda Manninp's Emplovment
a. Defendant shall not disclose any information or make references to any charge of discrimination or this lawsuit in responding to employment reference requests for information about Amanda Manning.
b. Defendant shall expunge fiom Amanda Manning's personnel file any references to a charge of discrimination against the Company and this lawsuit.
c. From the date of entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall not disclose in response to inquiries from potential employers any information regarding Amanda Manning's employment with the Company except as follows: 1. In response to a specific inquiry, the Company may disclose Amanda Manning's dates of employment, position held and final rate of pay; ii. The Company may report any information as required by law to state or federal authorities; iii. The Company may disclose information under Court order;

Consent Decree 3:06<v4705-TEH

Page 7

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 51 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 8 of 12

iv. Within twenty (20) days from the date of entry of this Consent Decree, the Company shall provide Amanda Manning with a letter of reference stating her dates of employment and positions held. The original letter of reference shall be sent to Susan Sher, Esq. for transmittal to Ms. Manning, with a copy to Evangelina Fierro Hernandez, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC, 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Reports to the Commission a. Training:Reports:
Within thirty (30) days of completion of each training required by this Consent Decree, the Company will send the EEOC verification of its completion of harassment training for its employees and accompanying documents. b. Sexual Harassment Complaint Reports: At the time the above verification of each training, Defendant shall provide to the Commission the name, address, position and telephone number any individual who has brought allegations of sexual harassment, andlor retaliation against Defendant, formal or informal, including, but not limited to, management officials, vendors, agents, employees, and customers. The nature of the complaint, the investigation by the Company and the corrective action taken, if any, shall be specified.

13. Policies Desipned to Promote Supervisor Accountabilitv a. Communication of Potential Discipline for Engaging; in Harassment. Defendant shall impose appropriate discipline, up to and including termination, suspension without pay or demotion, upon any supervisor or manager who engages in sexual harassment or knowingly permits any such conduct to occur in his or her work area or among employees under his or her supervision, or who retaliates against any person who complains or participates in any investigation or proceeding concerning such conduct. The Company shall communicate this

Consent Decree 3:06-CV-4705-TEH

Page 8

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 51 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 9 of 12

policy to all of its supervisors and managers. b. Communication of Dutv to Actively Monitor Woksite.
Defendant shall advise all managers and supervisors of their duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure employee compliance with the company's antiharassment policy, and to report any incidents andlor complaints of harassment andfor retaliation of which they become aware to the individuals charged with handling such complaints. V. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND EXPIRATION OF CONSENT DECREE a. This Consent Decree shall automatically terminate two (2) years from the date of entry by the Court, unless the Commission or Defendant petitions this Court for an extension of the Decree because of noncompliance by any Party. If any Party determines that the other has not complied with the Consent Decree, the Party will provide written notification of the alleged breach to all Parties and will not petition the Court for enforcement sooner than thirty (30) days after providing written notification. The thirty-day period following written notice shall be used by the parties for good faith efforts to resolve the issue. If the Commission petitions the Court and the Court finds the Company to be in substantial violation of the terms of the Decree, the Court may extend this Consent Decree.

Plaintiff Commission

3 Dated:

// ,200'7

n

-

Y

William R. Tama

Regional Attorn

Defendant: Dated: June

, 2007

Jefferey N. Daly LAW OFFICES OF JEFFEREY N. DALY

Consent Decree 3:06-~v-4705-TEH

Page 9

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 51 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 10 of 12

policy to all of its supervisorsand managers. b. Communication of Dutv to Activelv Monitor Worksite.
Defendant shall advise all managers and supervisors of their duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure employee compliance with the company's antiharassment policy, and to report any incidents and/or complaints of harassment andlor retaliation of which they become aware to the individuals charged with handlingsuch complaints. V. RETENTION OF JURISDI(T1ON AND EXPIRATION OF CONSENT DECREE a. This Consent Decree shall automatically terminate two (2) years from the date of entry by the Court, unless the Commission or Defendant petitions this Court for an extension of the Decreebecause of noncomplianceby any Party. If my Party determines that the other has not complied with the Consent Decree, the Party will provide written notification of the alleged breach to all Parties and will not petition the Court for enforcement sooner than thirty (30) days after providing written notification. The thirty-day period following written notice shaI1be used by the parties for good faith efforts to resolve the issue. If the Commission petitions the Court and the Court finds the Company to be in substantial violation of the terms of the Decree, the Court may extend this Consent Decree.

Plaintiff Commission
Dated: June , 2007
William R. Tamayo Regional Attorney

Defendant:
a Dated: June ,2007
OFFICES OF JEFFEREY N. DALY

Consent Deem 3:06cv-4705-TEH

Page 9

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 51 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 11 of 12

I

Catherine L. Manske GORDON & REES LLP

d

Plaintiff-Intervenor

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
IT IS SO ORDERED:
Dated:

SUSAN SHER LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN SHER Attorney for Intervenors
Thelton E. Henderson United States District Court Judge

Consent Decree 3:06-CV-4705-TEH

Page 10

Case 3:06-cv-04705-TEH Document 51 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 12 of 12 J u n 28 2007 9 : 3 6 R M Lau Office o f Susan Sher (7071462-6258

1 Jonathan T. Peck
2 SupervisoryTrial Attorney

9 1IT ISSO ORDERED:

Dated:

07/18/07

UNITED S ALIFORNIA

OURT NORTH

Catherine L.Manske GORDON & REES LLP Plaintiff-Intervenor
w
LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN SHER Attorney for Intervenors
TATES DISTRICT C
Thelton E. Henderson
United States District Court Judge
Judge Thelton E. Henderson
ERN DISTRICT OF C

21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Conaeat D m r 3:06cv4705-TEH

Page 10

 </s> CAND-ECF

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242322128777223-L_1...

ADRMOP, CLOSED, E-Filing, MEDTERM
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06-cv-04705-TEH

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. J.A. Sutherland, Inc. Assigned to: Hon. Thelton E. Henderson Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question

Date Filed: 08/03/2006 Date Terminated: 07/20/2007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Evangelina Fierro Hernandez U.S. EEOC Legal 350 The Embarcadero Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94103 415-625-5622 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: Evangelina.Hernandez@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan T. Peck Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Francisco District Office 350 Embarcadero Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1687 415/625-5622 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: Jonathan.Peck@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Robert Tamayo Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Francisco District Office 350 Embarcadero Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1687 415-625-5645 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: william.tamayo@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 6

3/24/2008 3:23 PM

CAND-ECF

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242322128777223-L_1...

V. Intervenor Pla Amanda K. Manning
V. Defendant J.A. Sutherland, Inc. doing business as Taco Bell

represented by Susan Sher Law Offices of Susan Sher 215 West Standley Street, Suite 8 Ukiah, CA 95482 707-463-1196 Fax: 707-462-6258 Email: ssher@pacific.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Catherine L. Manske Gordon & Rees LLP 655 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 565-2900 Fax: (916) 920-4402 Email: cmanske@gordonrees.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Nash Daly Attorney at Law Post Office Box 246 Middletown, CA 95461 707-987-9082 Fax: 707-987-0982 Email: jdalylaw@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/03/2006
08/03/2006
08/03/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT - Civil Rights Employment Discrimination; Demand for Jury Trial against J.A. Sutherland, Inc. (Filing fee Waived). Filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/6/2006 (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/07/2006)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 10/27/2006. Case Management Conference set for 11/3/2006 01:30 PM. (Attachments: # 1 CMC Standing Order# 2 Standing Order #2)(gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2006) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
Summons Issued as to J.A. Sutherland, Inc.. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2006) (Entered: 08/07/2006)

2 of 6

3/24/2008 3:23 PM

CAND-ECF
08/03/2006 08/09/2006 09/07/2006 09/11/2006 10/04/2006 10/05/2006 10/05/2006
10/05/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006 10/13/2006

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242322128777223-L_1...
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2006) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
3 CLERK'S NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF RE: Consent to Proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Form due by AUG. 23, 2006. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2006) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
4 CLERK'S SECOND NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF RE: Consent to Proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Form due by SEPT. 21, 2006. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2006) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
5 CONSENT to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (Hernandez, Evangelina) (Filed on 9/11/2006) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
6 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by J.A. Sutherland, Inc.. (Manske, Catherine) (Filed on 10/4/2006) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
7 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2006) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
8 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Thelton E. Henderson for all further proceedings. Judge Joseph C. Spero no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 10/5/06. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2006) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
9 CLERK'S NOTICE: Initial Case Management Conference set for 11/6/2006 at 01:30 PM. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2006) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
10 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed by J.A. Sutherland, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2006 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Manske, Catherine) (Filed on 10/12/2006) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
11 MEMORANDUM in Support re 10 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed byJ.A. Sutherland, Inc.. (Related document(s) 10 ) (Manske, Catherine) (Filed on 10/12/2006) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
12 Declaration of Jeffrey N. Daly in Support of 10 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed byJ.A. Sutherland, Inc.. (Related document(s) 10 ) (Manske, Catherine) (Filed on 10/12/2006) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
13 Proposed Order re 10 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint by J.A. Sutherland, Inc.. (Manske, Catherine) (Filed on 10/12/2006) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
14 NOTICE by J.A. Sutherland, Inc. re 10 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint RE-NOTICE (Manske, Catherine) (Filed on 10/12/2006) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
15 *** FILED IN ERROR. DOCUMENT TO BE REFILED LATER. *** MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by Amanda K. Manning. Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2006 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Sher, Susan) (Filed on 10/13/2006) Modified on 10/13/2006 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2006)

3 of 6

3/24/2008 3:23 PM

CAND-ECF
10/13/2006
10/13/2006
10/13/2006
10/13/2006 10/13/2006 10/13/2006 10/16/2006 10/16/2006
10/16/2006 10/23/2006 10/26/2006 10/30/2006 11/01/2006

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242322128777223-L_1...
16 *** FILED IN ERROR. DOCUMENT TO BE REFILED LATER. *** MOTION to Intervene filed by Amanda K. Manning. Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2006 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Sher, Susan) (Filed on 10/13/2006) Modified on 10/13/2006 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2006)
17 *** FILED IN ERROR. DOCUMENT TO BE REFILED LATER. *** MOTION to Intervene Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by Amanda K. Manning. Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2006 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Sher, Susan) (Filed on 10/13/2006) Modified on 10/13/2006 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2006)
18 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by Amanda K. Manning. Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2006 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Sher, Susan) (Filed on 10/13/2006) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
19 Declaration of Susan Sher Declaration of Susan Sher In Support of Motion for Leave to Intervene filed byAmanda K. Manning. (Sher, Susan) (Filed on 10/13/2006) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
20 EXHIBITS Proposed Complaint In Intervention filed byAmanda K. Manning. (Sher, Susan) (Filed on 10/13/2006) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
21 Proposed Order Proposed Order Re Motion For Leave to Intervene by Amanda K. Manning. (Sher, Susan) (Filed on 10/13/2006) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
22 MEMORANDUM in Support Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion for Leave to Intervene filed byAmanda K. Manning. (Sher, Susan) (Filed on 10/16/2006) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
23 Renotice motion hearing re 18 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Intervene filed byAmanda K. Manning. Motion Hearing set for 11/27/2006 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Sher, Susan) (Filed on 10/16/2006) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Amanda K. Manning (Sher, Susan) (Filed on 10/16/2006) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
25 NOTICE by J.A. Sutherland, Inc. Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (Daly, Jeffrey) (Filed on 10/23/2006) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
26 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hernandez, Evangelina) (Filed on 10/26/2006) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
27 AMENDED COMPLAINT First against J.A. Sutherland, Inc.. Filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hernandez, Evangelina) (Filed on 10/30/2006) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
28 Memorandum in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Intervene Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Intervene filed byJ.A. Sutherland, Inc.. (Manske, Catherine) (Filed on 11/1/2006) (Entered: 11/01/2006)

4 of 6

3/24/2008 3:23 PM

CAND-ECF
11/02/2006 11/02/2006 11/02/2006 11/02/2006 11/02/2006 11/02/2006 11/03/2006 11/06/2006
11/10/2006 11/13/2006 11/14/2006 11/27/2006 12/04/2006 12/04/2006 12/04/2006
5 of 6

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242322128777223-L_1...
29 MOTION to Appear by Telephone filed by Amanda K. Manning. (Sher, Susan) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
30 Proposed Order Proposed Order Re Request to Appear Telephonically by Amanda K. Manning. (Sher, Susan) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
31 Memorandum in Opposition of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Evanegelina Hernandez)(Hernandez, Evangelina) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
32 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 29 Motion to Appear by Telephone by Atty. Susan Sher. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
33 MOTION to Appear by Telephone at 11/6/06 Case Managment Conference filed by J.A. Sutherland, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 11/6/2006 01:30 PM. (Manske, Catherine) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
34 Proposed Order re 33 MOTION to Appear by Telephone at 11/6/06 Case Managment Conference by J.A. Sutherland, Inc.. (Manske, Catherine) (Filed on 11/2/2006) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
35 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 33 Motion to Appear by Telephone by Atty. Catherine Manske. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2006) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
36 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 11/6/2006 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Case Management Conference set for 12/4/2006 01:30 PM. (not reported) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/6/2006) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
37 STIPULATION Stipulation and Proposed Order Granting Leave to Intervene by Amanda K. Manning. (Sher, Susan) (Filed on 11/10/2006) (Entered: 11/10/2006)
38 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 18 Motion to Intervene. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2006) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
39 Intervenor COMPLAINT Complaint In Intervention - Employment Discrimination. Filed byAmanda K. Manning. (Sher, Susan) (Filed on 11/14/2006) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
40 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Supplemental filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hernandez, Evangelina) (Filed on 11/27/2006) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
41 Defendant's ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint byJ.A. Sutherland, Inc.. (Manske, Catherine) (Filed on 12/4/2006) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
42 Defendant's ANSWER to Amended Complaint First byJ.A. Sutherland, Inc.. (Manske, Catherine) (Filed on 12/4/2006) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
43 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 12/4/2006 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Case referred to mediation. Further Case Management Conference set for 4/23/2007 at 01:30 PM. (not reported) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/4/2006) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
3/24/2008 3:23 PM

CAND-ECF
12/19/2006 01/08/2007 01/18/2007 02/16/2007
04/16/2007 04/23/2007
05/29/2007 05/30/2007 07/17/2007 07/19/2007

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?242322128777223-L_1...
44 ADR Clerk's Notice Appointing Jody I. LeWitter as Mediator dated 12/19/2006. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2006) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
Pre MED phone conference scheduled on Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2007) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Mediation Hearing set for 2/7/2007 10:30 AM., at the mediator's office in Oakland, CA. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2007) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
45 CERTIFICATION OF MEDIATION Session on 2/6/2007, case not settled, phone discussions expected by 2/20/2007, mediation complete. Filed by Mediator, Jody I. LeWitter, dated 2/17/2007. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2007) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
46 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hernandez, Evangelina) (Filed on 4/16/2007) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
47 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 4/23/2007 before Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Telephonic Further Case Management Conference set for 6/4/2007 at 01:30 PM. (not reported) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/23/2007) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
48 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hernandez, Evangelina) (Filed on 5/29/2007) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
49 ORDER continuing case management conference. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 05/30/07. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2007) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
50 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consent Decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hernandez, Evangelina) (Filed on 7/17/2007) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
51 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 07/18/07. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2007) (Entered: 07/19/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/24/2008 13:23:19

PACER Login:

wu0079

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

eeoc 3:06-cv-04705-TEH 0.32

6 of 6

3/24/2008 3:23 PM


[CONTENT] August 2006 | the San Francisco District Office | EEOC | J.A. Sutherland, Inc. | Taco Bell | the U.S. District Court | the Northern District | California | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act | 1964 |||  ||| July 2007 ||| July 2007 ||| two-year | 48,000 ||| 2009 [SUMMARY] In August 2006, the San Francisco District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit against restaurant services provider J.A. Sutherland, Inc., doing business as Taco Bell, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging discrimination on the basis of gender, female, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendant subjected the complaining party to a sexually hostile environment.  The complaining party intervened in the lawsuit in July 2007.  Following some discovery, the parties settled the lawsuit in July 2007 though a consent decree.

The two-year decree, containing an anti-discrimination clause, required the defendant to: report complaints and make compliance reports, expunge the complainant's employment record and provide a neutral reference, rewrite its anti-discrimination policy, distribute employee rights, implement a complaint resolution process, provide EEO training, require supervisors/managers to actively monitor to prevent harassment and discipline them for failure to do so, and pay $48,000 to the complaining party. The docket sheet shows that no further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2009.

