CV 04
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

3076

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, ’~.~~~~ 3 iO~~ C~IVI

L ACTION~ ~ .~ C)~:~

NO.

~ ~ ~.O0~.L-~

COMPLAINT

COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS CONSULTANTS,
Defendant.

:

ffURY T~ DEM~D

:

WEXLER, J,

J. ORENSTEIN, M.J.
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex discrimination (female) retaliation and constructive discharge, and to provide appropriate relief to Jean Marie Addeo and Laura Hart and other similarly situated women who were adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraphs 7 through 9 below, Defendant, Comprehensive Benefits Consultants ("CBC"), created and maintained a hostile work environment based on sex. Defendant constructively discharged Jean Marie Addeo and retaliated against Laura Hart when she participated in protected activity and complained of the sexually hostile environment.

-1-

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 Section 704 (a), 706(0(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-3 (a), 5 (f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") 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 Eastern District.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706 (f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-5. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, CBC, with offices located in Melville, New York, is incorporated in the United States, has continuously done business in the State of New York, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
-2-

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Jean Made Addeo

and Laura Hart filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant.

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

7. Since at least April 2001, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment

practices, in violation of Section 703 (a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (a)(2), by creating and

maintaining a sexually hostile work environment based on Ms. Addeo’s, Ms. Hart’s and other

similarly situated female employees’ seTxh.ese practices have included, but are not limited to:

a.

Defendant repeatedly calling female employees "bitches,"

"baby," and "fat slobs";

b. Defendant frequently telling Ms. Addeo that she had a "fat ass"

and he preferred her to his wife because Ms. Addeo was "meatier";

c. Defendant frequently commenting to Ms. Addeo that she did not

perform oral sex on her husband enough;

d. Defendant giving women sexual jokes to read while at work;

e. Defendant, in the presence of female employees, referring to a

female client as having a "nice rack" and wanting to put a female client on a conference table and

"bang the shit out of her"; f. Defendant telling Ms. Hart that he could "fuck her and she would

enjoy every minute of it."

g. Subjecting Ms. Addeo to unwanted hugging, grabbing and other

unwanted and unwelcome physical contact. -3-

8. Defendant retaliated against Ms. Hart by changing the terms and conditions of her employment when she engaged in a protected activity by participating in an investigation about the sexually harassing conduct.
9. Defendant constructively discharged Ms. Addeo by creating such an intolerably hostile work environment that she was forced to leave her employment with Defendant.
10. The effect of these practices complained of in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 above has been to deprive Jean Marie Addeo, Laura Hart and other similarly situated women of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Jean Marie Addeo Laura Hart and other similarly situated women.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in harassing conduct and other employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex and retaliation. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees regardless of sex and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
-4-

C. Order Defendant to make whole Jean Made Addeo, Laura Hart and other

similarly situated women by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in

amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of

its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement and promotion.

D. Order Defendant to make whole Jean Made Addeo, Laura Hart and other

similarly situated women by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses

resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 including

job search expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.

E. Order Defendant to make whole Jean Made Addeo, Laura Hart and other

similarly situated women by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses

resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7,8 and 9 above, including but

not limited to emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of

life, in amounts to be determined at trial.

F. Order Defendant to pay Jean Made Addeo, Laura Hart and other similarly situated

women punitive damages for Defendant’s malicious and reckless conduct described in

paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

Go

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

interest.

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

-5-

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, Eric S. Dreiband General Counsel James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel 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 Lisa Siren .
NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE 33 Whitehall Street, 5t~ Floor New York, New York 10014 (212) 336-3704 (Monique Roberts direct) (212) 336-3623 (fax)
-6-

 </s> Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 31 Filed 02/10/2005 Page 1 of 8

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New York District Office

Monique J. Roberts Trial Attorney Phone (212) 336-3704 Fax (212) 336-3623

33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004-2112 Phone: (212) 336-3620 TTY: (212) 336-3622

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING & FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
February 10, 2005
Magistrate James Orenstein United States District Court Eastern District of New York 100 Federal Plaza Central Islip, New York 11722
Re: EEOC v. Comprehensive Benefits Consultants 04 CV 3076 (LDW)(JOl
Dear Magistrate Orenstein:
EEOC has revised it's Complaint as per Your Honor's order of February 4,2005.
. O(b7~/'}U0~-
orney

cc. Brian S. Sokoloff (via facsimile transmission)

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 31 Filed 02/10/2005 Page 2 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v.
COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS CONSULTANTS,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex discrimination (female), retaliation and constructive discharge, and to provide appropriate reliefto Jean Marie Addeo, Laura Hart and other similarly situated women who were adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraphs 7 through 9 below, Defendant, Comprehensive Benefits Consultants ("CBC"), created and maintained a hostile work environment based on sex. Defendant constructively discharged Ms. Addeo and retaliated against Ms. Hart when she participated in protected activity and complained ofthe sexually hostile environment. Defendant further retaliated against Ms. Addeo and Ms. Hart by filing lawsuits against them in New York State Court alleging defamation of character.
-1-

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 31 Filed 02/10/2005 Page 3 of 8
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 Section 703(a)(I), and 704 (a), 706(f)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a)(I), 42 U.S.c. §2000e-3(a), 42 U.S. C. §2000e-5 (f)(l) and (3) ("Title VII") 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 Eastern District.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706 (f)(l) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-5. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, CBC, with offices located in Melville, New York, is incorporated in the United States, has continuously done business in the State of New York, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
-2-

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 31 Filed 02/10/2005 Page 4 of 8

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

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

Hart filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All

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

7. Since at least April 200 I, Defendant through Lou Russo and Michael Russo, the

President and Vice President of Defendant CBC, respectively, in their capacity as corporate

officers and managers of CBC and other related companies, has engaged in unlawful

employment practices, in violation of Section 703 (a)(l) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2 (a)(l),

by creating and maintaining a sexually hostile work environment based on Ms. Addeo's, Ms.

Hart's and other similarly situated female employees' sex. These practices have included, but are

not limited to:

a.

Defendant, through Lou Russo, in his capacity as a manager and

a corporate officer of CBC and other related companies, repeatedly calling female employees

"bitches," "baby," and "fat slobs";

b. Defendant, through Michael Russo, in his capacity as a manager

and a corporate officer of CBC and other related companies, frequently telling Ms. Addeo that

she had a "fat ass" and that he preferred her to his wife because Ms. Addeo was "meatier";

c. Defendant, through Michael Russo, in his capacity as a manager

and a corporate officer of CBC and other related companies, frequently commenting to Ms.

Addeo that she did not perform oral sex on her husband enough;

d. Defendant, through Michael Russo and/or Lou Russo, in their

capacity as managers and corporate officers of CBC and other related companies, giving women -3-

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 31 Filed 02/10/2005 Page 5 of 8
documents containing sexual jokes to read while at work; e. Defendant, through Michael Russo, in his capacity as a manager
and a corporate officer of CBC and other related companies, in the presence of female employees, referring to a female client as having a "nice rack" and wanting to put a female client on a conference table and "bang the shit out of her";
f. Defendant, through Michael Russo, in his capacity as a manager and a corporate officer of CBC and other related companies, telling Ms. Hart that he could "fuck her and she would enjoy every minute of it"; and
g. Defendant, through Michael Russo, in his capacity as a manager and a corporate officer of CBC and other related companies, SUbjecting Ms. Addeo to unwanted hugging, grabbing and other unwanted and unwelcome physical contact.
8. Since at least December 2002, Defendant, through Lou Russo and Michael Russo, has also engaged in retaliatory acts against Ms. Hart and Ms. Addeo, in violation of Section 704 (a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (a). These practices have included, but are not limited to:
a. Defendant, through Michael Russo and/or Lou Russo, in their capacity as managers and corporate officers of CBC and other related companies, retaliated against Ms. Hart by changing the terms and conditions of her employment when she engaged in a protected activity by participating in an investigation about the sexually harassing conduct; and
b. Defendant, through Michael Russo, in his capacity as a manager and a corporate officer of CBC and other related companies, further retaliated against Ms. Addeo and Ms. Hart by filing lawsuits against them in New York State Court alleging that each of the
-4-

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 31 Filed 02/10/2005 Page 6 of 8
women had defamed Michael Russo by speaking publically about acts of harassment. The women were served with the state court complaint one day before they were required to attend a mediation in the EEOC action. These complaints were signed by Tony Ward, who is, upon information and belief, an attorney employed by CBC. These defamation lawsuits are a further attempt to harass Ms. Addeo and Ms. Hart and intimidate them and other similarly situated employees from pursuing their federally protected rights under Title VII.
9. Defendant, through Michael Russo and/or Lou Russo, in their capacity as managers and corporate officers of CBC and other related companies, constructively discharged Ms. Addeo by creating such an intolerably hostile work environment that she was forced to leave her employment with Defendant.
10. The effect of these practices complained of in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above has been to deprive Ms. Addeo, Ms. Hart and other similarly situated women of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above were intentional.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Addeo, Ms. Hart and other similarly situated women.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in harassing
-5-

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 31 Filed 02/10/2005 Page 7 of 8
conduct and other employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex and retaliation. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which
provide equal employment opportunities for all employees regardless of sex and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant to make whole Jean Marie Addeo, Laura Hart and other similarly situated women by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement and promotion.
D. Order Defendant to make whole Jean Marie Addeo, Laura Hart and other similarly situated women by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above including job search expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to make whole Jean Marie Addeo, Laura Hart and other similarly situated women by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7,8, and 9 above, including but not limited to emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant to pay Jean Marie Addeo, Laura Hart and other similarly situated women punitive damages for Defendant's malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
-6-

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 31 Filed 02/10/2005 Page 8 of 8

H. 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,
Eric S. Dreiband General Counsel
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Y. Reams Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.. 20507

Eliza eth Grossman (EG 2478) Acting Regional Attorney
~r-c-~-C~
-Nora E. Curtin (NC 5223) Actin pervisory Tr' Att

~

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, New York 10014 (212) 336-3704 (Monique Roberts direct) (212) 336-3623 (fax)
-7-

 </s> Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 32 Filed 02/11/2005 Page 1 of 1

BEFORE: JAMES ORENSTEIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATE: TIME:

2/11/2005 1:30 p.m.

DOCKET NO.: CV 04-3076

ASSIGNED JUDGE: LDW

CASE NAME: EEOC v. Comprehensive Benefits Consultants

CIVIL CONFERENCE

Initial Other:

Status X

Settlement

Pretrial

APPEARANCES: Plaintiff

Monique Joy Roberts, Nora Curtin

Defendant Brian S. Sokoloff

SCHEDULING:

1. The status conference previously scheduled for February 22, 2005 is cancelled. 2. The next pretrial conference will be held on May 23, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.

THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE: (1) Defendant will respond to plaintiff's Document Request ("DR") 1 with the relevant personnel files. (2) Plaintiff's request to compel production of defendant's contracts with Phoenix and Guardian (DR 14) is GRANTED. (3) Plaintiff's request to compel production of tax records (DR 16) is DENIED. (4) Plaintiff's request to compel further responses to Interrogatories 15-16 is DENIED. (5) Defendant's application to compel production of documents that continue to be subject to a claim of privilege or to compel further clarification of the privilege log is DENIED in light of the information in plaintiff's counsel's letter of February 10, 2005. (6) Defendant's request for authorizations for the release of records held by the described potential witnesses (DR 7) is GRANTED, subject to the parties agreeing on an appropriate protective order. (7) Defendant's request for cell phone and email information is resolved as follows: (a) The cell phone records will be subpoenaed and defendant's counsel will identify, by name or telephone number, the relevant information being sought therein; plaintiff's counsel will provide redacted copies of the records showing that relevant information. (b) The plaintiff will provide all relevant emails as requested; defendant's application to subpoena emails from the service provider is DENIED without prejudice to renew if there is reason to believe that such a subpoena will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence not otherwise available. (8) The defendant's remaining requests to compel discovery are denied on the understanding that plaintiff will supplement its responses to the requests at issue notwithstanding the objections it has previously raised and without waiving those objections.
SO ORDERED

/s/ James Orenstein JAMES ORENSTEIN U.S. Magistrate Judge

 </s> Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 40 Filed 03/15/2005 Page 1 of 1

BEFORE: JAMES ORENSTEIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATE: TIME:

3/15/05 10:30 a.m.

DOCKET NO.: CV 04-3076

ASSIGNED JUDGE:

LDW

CASE NAME:

EEOC v. Comprehensive Benefits Consultants

CIVIL CONFERENCE

Initial

Status X

Settlement

Pretrial

APPEARANCES: Plaintiff Monique Joy Roberts, Nora Curtin Defendant Brian S. Sokoloff

SCHEDULING:

1. The next status conference will be held on May 31, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. 2. A pretrial conference will be held on July 25, 2005, at 11:00 a.m.

THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE: (1) For the reasons discussed on the record at the conference, plaintiff's motion to quash the subpoena on claimant Addeo's attorney is GRANTED. I conclude that the claimant and Susan Nally sought the advice of counsel together and had a common interest, that their meeting with the attorney was therefore privileged, and that there has not been an effective waiver of claimant Addeo's privilege to allow the deposition to proceed. To the extent that there were limited waivers by Ms. Addeo – such as counsel's explanation of what the initials EEOC stand for and his belief that documentary evidence and witnesses would be important – they do not constitute a waiver as to all related communications. Further, allowing inquiry into the limited areas as to which there has been a waiver would not be reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly since the opinion of an attorney as to the persuasiveness of evidence is not admissible. (2) Defendant will respond by March 17, 2005, to plaintiff's application to quash the subpoena on Craig Addeo. (3) The parties will submit portions of the transcript of the deposition of Fran Angelone relevant to my consideration of plaintiff's renewed application to have me review in camera documents claimed by plaintiff to be privileged. (4) By March 22, 2005, plaintiff will either produce Laura Hart's diary, as discussed at the conference, or confirm that it no longer exists. If it is produced and there is a question about its provenance, defendant will make further application as appropriate. If such further application is predicated on assertions about Ms. Hart's credibility, then Mr. Sokoloff must be available as a witness rather than as counsel to pursue the application. (5) Discovery is extended by 60 days. I will enter a separate amended case management and scheduling order reflecting the new deadlines.
SO ORDERED

/s/ James Orenstein JAMES ORENSTEIN U.S. Magistrate Judge

 </s> Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 47 Filed 03/30/2005 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
- against -
COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS CONSULTANTS,
Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CV 04-3076 (LDW) (JO)

JAMES ORENSTEIN, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), asserting that

communications among Susan Nally, claimant Jean Marie Addeo, and attorney Robert Bursky

are subject to a joint attorney-client privilege, "seeks a protective order to ensure that the

privilege is not breeched [sic] throughout the course of this litigation" pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 26(c). Docket Entry ("DE") 43. Defendant Comprehensive Benefits

Consultants ("CBC") opposes such relief on the ground that it would constitute an unnecessary

and improper "gag order." DE 44. In addition, the EEOC moves to quash CBC's subpoena duces

tecum requiring Craig Addeo, the husband of claimant Jean Marie Addeo, to produce certain

documents containing information about himself and his business. DE 38. CBC opposes that

application on the ground that the EEOC lacks standing to seek such relief and on the ground that

the subpoena is in any event a proper discovery mechanism. I now deny both applications: the

first is denied as moot, and the second is denied for the movant's want of standing.

I. Statements By Ms. Nally

Rule 26(c) authorizes a court to protect a party, or a person from whom discovery is

sought, with respect to the discovery process. The Rule specifies eight specific forms of relief

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 47 Filed 03/30/2005 Page 2 of 4
that are available, and although the list is not explicitly described as exclusive, any order pursuant to the rule must be of a kind that "justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense ...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The record before me (in addition to lacking the certification required by the rule's first sentence) does not reveal any circumstance suggesting that any such harm to the movant is imminent. Should Ms. Nally be called as a witness at trial, or should the defendant seek to introduce Ms. Nally's statements, in any form, at some other stage in these proceedings, plaintiff will have sufficient opportunity to seek to preclude of such statements based on the assertion of privilege. At this stage, however, it is unclear what a protective order would accomplish.
That the issue does not now present a live controversy does not completely end the matter, however, because the parties are continuing to engage in discovery and quite obviously have very different ideas about the status of the claim of privilege. In a minute order dated March 15, 2005, I concluded that Ms. Addeo and Ms. Nally "sought the advice of counsel together and had a common interest, that their meeting with the attorney was therefore privileged, and that there has not been an effective waiver of claimant Addeo's privilege" that would properly permit a general deposition of attorney Bursky. DE 40. While acknowledging that "there were limited waivers by Ms. Addeo – such as counsel's explanation of what the initials EEOC stand for and his belief that documentary evidence and witnesses would be important – they do not constitute a waiver as to all related communications." Id.
-2-

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 47 Filed 03/30/2005 Page 3 of 4
That ruling remains the law of the case and while Ms. Nally herself is not before the court or subject to the kind of "gag order" the defendant decries,1 the parties and their counsel are bound by that March 15 ruling unless and until reconsidered by me or reversed by the Honorable Leonard D. Wexler, United States District Judge, pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Should Judge Wexler reverse my earlier ruling, plaintiff's application for relief will remain moot. But while review of the order is pending, and thereafter if it is affirmed, the parties and their counsel proceed at their peril in soliciting from Ms. Nally any further disclosure of the contents of a communication that is subject to a claim of privilege by Ms. Addeo. "The essential benefit of such joint collaboration ... is that a member of the common legal enterprise cannot reveal the contents of the shared communications without the consent of all the parties.... That is, the privilege continues long after a member of the agreement has departed from the legal consortium and none of the parties to the agreement may unilaterally waive the privilege." Lugosch v. Congel, 219 F.R.D. 220, 238 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 406 F.Supp. 381, 393 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) ("[W]ithout it the protection is reduced to an improbable alternative.")).
1 Even if she were before the court, Ms. Nally would of course not be prohibited from revealing (or the parties from soliciting) her own statements to others, including the otherwise privileged content of her statements to Ms. Addeo and attorney Bursky at their joint meeting. That privilege is hers alone to waive. See United States v. Agnello, 135 F. Supp.2d 380, 383 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) ("A client who is part of a joint defense arrangement is entitled to waive the privilege for his own statements, and his co-defendants cannot preclude him from doing so.... All that [other holders of the privilege] would be entitled to do, to the extent that a joint defense privilege did attach to the conversations, is stop Agnello from directly or indirectly revealing the privileged communications of other participants.") (emphasis added; citations omitted).
-3-

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 47 Filed 03/30/2005 Page 4 of 4

II. The Subpoena To Craig Addeo

As CBC correctly notes, Craig Addeo is not a party to this action. He has not sought to

quash the subpoena for his records. Moreover, there is no claim before me that his wife has

some personal right or privilege with respect to the documents sought in the subpoena at issue.

While the EEOC may properly seek to protect Mrs. Addeo's interests as a claimant in this

litigation, no such rights appear to be at stake in this motion, and the EEOC has no standing to

litigate on behalf of a claimant's non-party spouse. Because that conclusion is sufficient to

dispose of the motion, I have no call to determine the merits of the EEOC's criticism of the

subpoena or CBC's defense of it. Should Mr. Addeo interpose a proper objection, I will consider

the merits at that time.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff EEOC's application for a protective order and its

motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum directed to Craig Addeo are both DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: Central Islip, New York March 30, 2005

/s/ James Orenstein JAMES ORENSTEIN U.S. Magistrate Judge

-4-

 </s> Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 52 Filed 04/12/2005 Page 1 of 1

BEFORE: JAMES ORENSTEIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATE: TIME:

4/12/05 2:00 p.m.

DOCKET NO.: CV 04-3076

ASSIGNED JUDGE:

LDW

CASE NAME: EEOC v. Comprehensive Benefits Consultants

CIVIL CONFERENCE

Initial

Status (Telephone) X

Settlement

Pretrial

Other:

APPEARANCES: Plaintiff Monique Joy Roberts Defendant Brian S. Sokoloff

SCHEDULING: 1. The next status conference will be held on May 31, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. 2. A pretrial conference will be held on July 25, 2005, at 11:00 a.m.

THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE: (1) The defendant's application to allow an expert to examine Ms. Hart's computer (docket entry 48) is DENIED. (2) By April 19, 2005, plaintiff's counsel will submit a letter reporting on (1) the date of last modification of the computer file for the diary indicated on the appropriate directory of Ms. Hart's computer, and (2) whether the EEOC has ever made a request for documents to Ms. Hart to which the diary would have been responsive and, if so, whether Ms. Hart did provide the diary in response. Based on the contents of that report, I will consider whether there is good cause to revisit the preceding denial of the defendant's application.
SO ORDERED
/s/ James Orenstein JAMES ORENSTEIN U.S. Magistrate Judge

 </s> Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 55 Filed 04/20/2005 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
- against -
COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS CONSULTANTS,
Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CV 04-3076 (LDW) (JO)

JAMES ORENSTEIN, Magistrate Judge:

By letter dated April 18, 2005, defendant Comprehensive Benefits Consultants ("CBC")

moves to compel non-party Craig Addeo to respond to its subpoena duces tecum. Docket Entry

("DE") 53. CBC served the subpoena at issue on Mr. Addeo on April 5, 2005. DE 53 Ex. B

(certificate of service). It required him to produce certain documents at the office of CBC's

counsel by April 11, 2005. Id. Ex. A (subpoena). That deadline has elapsed, reportedly without either compliance or any attempt by Mr. Addeo to quash the subpoena. Id. at 2.1

A subpoena is an order of the court, and its issuance creates an obligation to comply that

is entitled to no more or less respect than the order CBC now seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a).

Accordingly, the relief requested in the instant motion would have no independent effect, and I

decline to issue such a meaningless order. The motion is therefore DENIED as moot.

CBC remains free to seek further appropriate relief. Should it seek to reissue the

subpoena, it may of course do so, consistent with its obligation, and its attorney's, to "take

1 Although Mr. Addeo filed no motion to quash, the instant motion is not the first time the instant subpoena has been the subject of litigation. The EEOC, on behalf of Mr. Addeo's wife, who is in turn a claimant in this case, previously moved to quash the same subpoena. DE 38. I denied that motion for lack of standing on March 30, 2005. See DE 47 at 1, 4.

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 55 Filed 04/20/2005 Page 2 of 2

reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to th[e] subpoena." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). Mr. Addeo will then either comply in timely fashion, make a timely motion to quash, or be subject to appropriate sanctions for contempt – unless he can demonstrate that the subpoena was issued in violation of the duty to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense, in which case CBC may itself be subject to appropriate sanction. See id. ("The court on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reasonable attorney's fee."); see also In re Rezulin Prod. Liab. Litig., 2003 WL 21285537, * 1 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2003). Under the current circumstances, however, there is no request for relief before me that I can appropriately grant.
Counsel for CBC is directed to serve a copy of this order on Mr. Addeo and to file a certificate attesting to such service.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York April 20, 2005

/s/ James Orenstein JAMES ORENSTEIN U.S. Magistrate Judge

-2-

 </s> Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 57 Filed 04/25/2005 Page 1 of 2 c(~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------)(
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff,

CV04-3076

-against-
COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS CONSULTANTS,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------)(
APPEARANCES:

(Wexler, J.)

t>,PR 2 5 1005
"*
LONG ISLAND OFFICe

MONIQUE J. ROBERTS, ESQ. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE\ Attorneys for Plaintiff 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, New York 10014

MIRANDA & SOKOLOFF LLP BY: BRIAN S. SOKOLOFF, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant 240 Mineola Boulevard Mineola, NY 11501

WE)(LER, District Judge

Presently before the court is an objection of Defendant to a ruling of Magistrate Judge

James Orenstein dated March 15, 2005, quashing a subpoena served by Defendant on a

claimant's attorney. The subpoena was quashed on the ground that the discovery sought was

barred by the attorney-client privilege and, in any event, inquiry into any limited area where the

privilege was waived would not be reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 57 Filed 04/25/2005 Page 2 of 2

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court shall modify or set aside any part ofthe order appealed from that is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." FRCP 72(a). This court has reviewed the parties' submissions and the order of the Magistrate Judge and concludes that the order appealed from should be affirmed. Accordingly, Defendant's objections are hereby overruled and the Order of Magistrate Judge James Orenstein dated March 15, 2005, is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
--

Dated: Central Islip, New York April ~ ~ 2005

Crli:ONARD D. WEXLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT ruoGE

 </s> Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 62 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,
- against -
COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS CONSULTANTS,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CV 04-3076 (LDW) (JO)

Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------------X

JAMES ORENSTEIN, Magistrate Judge:

Before me are two motions seeking protective orders. First, by letter dated May 11, 2005,

plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or the "Commission") asks that I

prohibit or limit the deposition of one of its attorneys, Robert Rose, by defendant Comprehensive

Benefits Consultants ("CBC"). Docket Entry ("DE") 58. Second, subpoenaed witness

Craig Addeo has written a letter dated May 13, 2005, asking that I quash a subpoena duces tecum

directing him to provide a variety of documents relating to his business and to his wife, claimant

Jean Marie Addeo. DE 59. In separate letters dated May 17, 2005, CBC responded to both

applications. DE 60 (responding to EEOC's motion for protective order), DE 61 (responding to

Mr. Addeo's motion to quash). For the reasons set forth below, I now grant in part and deny in

part each application. Specifically, I will permit CBC to take the deposition of attorney Rose, but

only as to a very limited subject and only in writing, and I will require Mr. Addeo to produce

only those documents reflecting money or property given to Mrs. Addeo by Mr. Addeo's business

(and not by him in his individual capacity) since December 2002.

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 62 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 2 of 5
I. Deposition Of EEOC Attorney Rose CBC seeks to depose its adversary's attorney on the ground that his testimony might be
relevant to the credibility of Laura Hart, might lead to a finding of spoliation by that witness, and might reflect poorly on the EEOC's work in this case. In particular, CBC relies on Ms. Hart's testimony to the effect that she once possessed a tape of Michael Russo making inappropriate statements, but that she lost track of (and interest in) the tape after being told by Mr. Rose that the tape would be inadmissible. In other testimony cited by the EEOC but not addressed by CBC, Ms. Hart also stated that she was given the same opinion by CBC's current counsel.
To the extent that the contents of Ms. Hart's communications with Mr. Rose about the existence of and admissibility of the tape may have been privileged, the privilege was hers to waive and she did so by revealing her recollection of the communication. CBC may therefore inquire of Mr. Rose on that subject. I will limit the scope of the deposition to that subject only, because nothing in CBC's letter suggests that any other line of questioning appears reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In particular, to the extent that CBC might wish to interrogate Mr. Rose regarding the sufficiency of the Commission's investigation in this case, its basis for seeking to do so appears to be entirely speculative, and such questioning would likely intrude on a separate privilege that is not Ms. Hart's – or any individual's – to waive. See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 399 F.3d 527 (2d Cir. 2005).
I will also impose another limit on the deposition. To avoid needless waste of time and additional litigation, particularly in light of the Commission's representation that Mr. Rose does not recall the matters as to which I have permitted inquiry as well as the parties' tendency to multiply discovery-related litigation, I will exercise my authority to allow the limited deposition
-2-

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 62 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 3 of 5
to proceed only in writing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(3), 31. Specifically, CBC may, but need not, take the deposition of Mr. Rose upon written questions limited to the issue of whether Ms. Hart disclosed the existence of the tape at issue to Mr. Rose, and whether Mr. Rose opined that the tape was inadmissible or in any way advised Ms. Hart as to the tape's disposition.
The fact that Ms. Hart claimed to have received the same opinion from CBC's current counsel raises a separate issue; namely, whether CBC's defense strategy has necessarily made a fact witness of its current counsel. The issue may not require resolution if CBC determines that it will not seek the limited deposition of Mr. Rose that I will permit, and if it further determines that it will not challenge Ms. Hart's explanation of the disappearance of the tape (either because she does not testify to the tape's existence or because CBC does not contest the veracity of her account on that score). Accordingly, I will require CBC to advise me within one week as to whether it will take Mr. Rose's deposition pursuant to the preceding protective order, and also as to whether it will seek to challenge in any way the veracity of Ms. Hart's testimony that Mr. Sokoloff opined that the tape was inadmissible, and I will likewise require the Commission to report as to whether it will seek to offer evidence about the tape at the trial of this case. At the next conference, I will expect counsel to be prepared to discuss the impact of their reports on the ability of CBC's attorney to continue as counsel in this case. II. Documents Subpoenaed From Craig Addeo
This is not the first time the subpoena directed to Mr. Addeo has been before me. I previously denied the Commission's motion to quash the same subpoena for lack of standing, DE 47, and then later denied as moot an application by CBC that I issue an order to compel production of the subpoenaed items. DE 55. In the latter denial, I noted that CBC remained free
-3-

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 62 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 4 of 5
to persist in its efforts to secure documents from Mr. Addeo "consistent with its obligation, and its attorney's, to 'take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to th[e] subpoena.'" DE 55 at 1-2 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)). As I noted at that time, issuing a subpoena in violation of the duty to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense can expose the issuing party to an appropriate sanction. Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1) ("The court on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reasonable attorney's fee.") and In re Rezulin Prod. Liab. Litig., 2003 WL 21285537, * 1 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2003)).
The reminder appears to have fallen on deaf ears. The subpoena seeks all records reflecting (1) the identities of all customers who placed orders with Mr. Addeo's business or with Mrs. Addeo since May 2002, (2) all income generated by such orders, (3) all money or property given to Mrs. Addeo by Mr. Addeo's business or by Mr. Addeo personally, and (4) all payments by Mr. Addeo personally of any of Mrs. Addeo's debts.
These requests are needlessly overbroad and burdensome, and obviously so. To the extent there may be a relevant issue lurking here – namely, the mitigation of damages – it is amply addressed by requiring the production of records showing employment income to Mrs. Addeo from Mr. Addeo's business. The remainder is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly in the context of a marital relationship. That a husband provides money to his wife or pays her debts says nothing about damages unless he does so as compensation for employment, and the orders placed to the business and the identities of the customers does not reveal what that compensation was. Further, to the extent CBC's counsel
-4-

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 62 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 5 of 5

suggests that the documents he seeks may be useful in supporting the proposition that a

claimant's husband might be biased in favor of his wife and against the defendants she claims

sexually harassed her, the imagined benefit is easily outweighed by the undue burden of forcing a

husband to account for every penny he provides to or on behalf of his wife.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, EEOC's application for a protective order is GRANTED

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, in that CBC may take the deposition of attorney Rose, but

only as to a very limited subject and only in writing. I further ORDER that CBC shall report by

May 25, 2005, as to whether it will either take Mr. Rose's deposition pursuant to the preceding

protective order or seek to challenge in any way the veracity of Ms. Hart's testimony that

Mr. Sokoloff opined that the tape was inadmissible, and also ORDER that the Commission shall

report by the same date as to whether it will seek to offer evidence about the tape at the trial of

this case.

Further, for the reasons set forth above, Craig Addeo's motion to quash the subpoena

duces tecum issued by CBC is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, in that

Mr. Addeo must produce only those documents reflecting money or property given to

Mrs. Addeo by Mr. Addeo's business (and not by him in his individual capacity); the subpoena is

quashed as to all other items. Counsel for CBC is directed to serve a copy of this order on

Mr. Addeo.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: Central Islip, New York May 18, 2005

/s/ James Orenstein JAMES ORENSTEIN U.S. Magistrate Judge

-5-

 </s> UCNaITsEeD2:S0T4A-cTvE-0S3D0I7S6T-LRDICWT-CAOKTURTDocument 108 EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------)(
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Filed 04/10/2006 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff,

CV 04-3076

-against-

(Wexler, J.)

COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS CONSULTANTS, INC.,

Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------)(
APPEARANCES:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION BY: MONIQUE J. ROBERTS, ESQ. New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street STHFloor New York, New York 10004 Attorneys for Plaintiff

MIRANDA SOKOLOFF SAMBURSKY SLONE VERVENIOTIS BY: BRIAN SOKOLOFF, ESQ. 240 Mineola Boulevard Mineola, New York 11501 Attorneys for Defendant

WE)(LER, District Judge

This is an employment discrimination case commenced pursuant to Title VII ofthe Civil

Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"

or the "Commission"). The case is prosecuted by the Commission on behalf of Jean Marie

Addeo ("Addeo"), Laura Hart ("Hart"), Michelle Martone ("Martone") and Francine Angelone

("Angelone") (collectively "Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs claim, variously, that they were subject to a

sexually hostile work environment, constructive discharge and unlawful retaliation while

employed at Defendant Comprehensive Benefits Consultants ("CBC").

CaseP2r:e0s4en-ctlvy-b0e3f0o7re6t-hLeDcWou-ArtKisTDefeDnodcaunmt'semntot1i0on8 for sFuimlemd a0r4y/j1u0d/g2m00en6t purPsauagnet 2tooRfu3le 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant's motion is based upon the arguments that Plaintiffs were not CBC employees and that Plaintiffs have set forth insufficient facts to support their substantive claims of discrimination.
Discussion Summary judgment is properly granted only if "there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter oflaw." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (a party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that); Celotex Com. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,322 (1986); Donohue v. Windsor Locks Bd. of Fire Comm'rs, 834 F.2d 54, 57 (2d Cir. 1987). Upon consideration of the voluminous papers submitted by the parties in support of and in opposition to the motion, this Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist precluding the entry of summary judgment with respect to each of Plaintiffs, claims. First, as to the issue of whether or not Plaintiffs were employees of CBC, the Commission has raised more than sufficient facts to support the theory that this Defendant may be found liable under a single integrated and/or joint employer theory. See Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC, 425 F.3d 193, 197-201 (2d Cir. 2005). The factual decision on this issue must await development at trial. The court similarly denies to grant summary judgment as to the substance of Plaintiffs' claims. Without going into detail as to each and every allegation, the court holds that its review of Plaintiffs' allegations are more than sufficient, if found to be true, to support the substantive claims set forth in the complaint. See Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138, 149-151 (2d Cir. 2004) (reversing district court grant of summary judgment on ground that Plaintiff set forth sufficient facts to support hostile environment claim); Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610, 625-28

(2dCCaisr.e220:0014)-(crve-v0e3rs0in7g6-dLisDtrWic-tAcoKuTrt graDnot coufmsuemnmt 1a0ry8judgFmielendt o0n4g/1ro0u/2n0d0t6hat PPlaaingteiff3seotf 3 forth sufficient facts for a reasonable jury to find, inter alia, that employment decisions were carried out in retaliation for complaints of discriminatory treatment).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: Central Islip, New York April 10, 2006

M~ -ONARo D. WEXLER I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 </s> '.~ .' ~N..ov-iOS-16•Cas0e2:236:p0m4-cvF-r0om3-076-LDW-AKT Document 126 Filed 12/20/2006 T-30P9 agPe.0012/o00fB16 F-493

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------x
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS CONSULTANTS, INC.,
Defendant.
--·----------------x

Civil Action No. 04 CV 3076 (LOW) (AKT)

CONSENT DECREE The parties to this Consent Decree are the Equal Emplojment Opportunity Conunission (hereinafter "the EEOC"); and Comprehensive Benefits Consultants (hereinafter "Defendant").
For purposes ohms Decree, Defendant is defined as any and all entities doing business at 1800
Walt Whitman Road, Melville, New York under the control of Louis Russo.
The EEOC brought this action on July 21,2004, pursuant to Title vn of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981A. The EEOC alleges that Jean Marie Addeo, Laura Hart and a class of similarly situated female employees were sexually harassed by Defendant, that Defendant retaliated against Ms. Hart when she infonned it about the harassment, and that as a result of Defendant's discrimination. the conditions of employment were made so intolerable that Ms. Addeo was forced to resign. The EEOC further alleges that Defendlmt retaliated against Ms. Addeo and Ms. Hart for complaining about the harassment by filing defamation lawsuits against

-----

., . ' N,ov-,09-06C•as0e2:326:p0m4-cvF-ro0m3-076-LDW-AKT Document 126 Filed 12/20/2006 T-30P9 agPe,0203/o00f 816 F-493
them in New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk COlmty State Court, on November 16, 2004, Docket Numbers 04-248966 and 04-248965 (hereinafter "defamation lawsuits").
The parties desire to settle this action, and therefore stipulate and consent to the entry of this Decree as final and binding between the parties and their successors or assigns. Defendant denies plajntiffs allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation.
The Decree resolves all matters related to Civil Action No. 04-CV-3076, now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofNew York. The pa1t;es agree that this
Decree may be entered into without Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law being made and
entered by the Court. No waiver, modification or amendment of any provision ofthis Consent Decree shall be effective unless made in writing, approved by all parties to this Decree and approved or ordered by the Court.
In consideration of the mutual promises and agreements cOl1tained in this Decree, the sufficiency ofwhlch is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows, the Coun finds appropriate, and it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. This Decree resolves all allegations raised in EEOC Charge Numbers 160-A301152, 160-2004-00091 and 160-2004-01897 and all allegations that were raised in the complaint filed by the EEOC. This Decree does not resolve any charge of discrimination
currently pending before the EEOC or any charge that may be filed in the future.
2. The parties agree and the Court fmds that this Court has jurisdiction over the subj cct matter of this action and the parties to this action, that venue is proper, and that all
2

Nev-09-06

,

!.

C• as0e2:326p:m04-cFvr-o0m3- 076-LDW-AKT

Document 126

Filed 12/20/2006T-309PagPe.0034/0o0fS16F-493

administrative prerequisites have been met. No party shall contest the validity of this Decree or the jurisdiction of the federal district court to enforce this Decree and its temlS.
3. The parties desire to settle this action, and therefore do hereby stipulate and consent to the entry of this Decree as final and binding between the parties and their successors, assigns, subsidiaries, affiliates, and any other corporation or other entity into which Defendant may merge or with which it may consolidate. Defendant shall provide notice and a copy oftrus Decree to any successors, assigns, subsidiaries, affiliates, and any other corporation or other entity into which Defendant may merge or with which it may consolidate.
MONETARY RELIEF 4. Within 10 days after the entry of this Decree, Defendant will pay to Jean Marie Addeo, Laura Hart, Michelle Martone and Francine Angelone a total of$150,000 which reflects back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. The total amount will be distributed as set forth in Exhibit A, annexed hereto and filed under seal.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 5. Withdrawal of "Defamation Lawsuits with Prejudice
Within three days ofthe entry oftrus Decree, Michael Russo will dismiss with prejudice the defamation lawsuits against Jean Marie Addeo, New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County Index No. 04-24895 and Laura Hart, New York State Supreme Coun, Suffolk County Index No. 24896. Within five days of entry of the order dismissing the defamation lawsuits, Defendants will furnish a copy of the order to Monique J. Roberts, Trial Attorney, EEOC New York District Office, 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY" 10004-2112.

3

N, O'V-'09-06C. as02e:362p:m04-cFvro-m0-3076-LDW-AKT Document 126 Filed 12/20/2006T-309PagP,OeO4S/OoOfB 16F-493
6. Non-Discrimination a. Defendant and its agents are enjoined from discriminating against any
individual because of her or his sex in violation ofTitle VII. b. Defendant and its agents are enjoined from retaliating against any
individual for asserting rights under Title VIT, inclu.ding but not limited to filing a charge, providing assistance or evidence or testifying in the investigation or litigation of this or any other charge of discrimination, or for asserting her or his rights under Title VII.
7. Policies and Procedures a. Within 10 days of the entry ofthis Decree, Defendant agrees to adopt the
Anti-Discrimination Policy attached hereto as Exhibit B. b. Within 20 days of entry of this Decree, Defendant will appoint Nicholas
Giarusso to be its official Human Resources Officer (,'HRO"). The HRO shall also be responsible for compliance with all provisions in this Decree. Defendant will provide information about the HRG to all employees through the letter attached as Exhibit C.
c. The BRO shall also receive, investigate and resolve all complaints of discrimination, including, but not limited to, harassment based on sex and retaliation. All complaints to the HRO are to be confidential.
d. The HRO is to retain reports and documents of all investigations conducted and any findings and/or resolutions thereto. The complainant will receive a brief summary of said findings and/or resolutions as will the EEOC.
4

Not-p9~06 Cas02e:3S2p:m04-cFvro-m0-3076-LDW-AKT Document 126 Filed 12/20/2006T-309PagP,eOO5S/OoOfB 16F-493

e. Should the BRO leave his position for any reason during the duration of this

Decree, Defendant shall replace him within 60 days, and shall obtain the EEOC's approval

before appointing a successor.

8. Training

Within three months of the entry of this Decree, Defendant agrees to provide the

following training to all its employees:

a. Defendant will provide two hours of anti-discrimination training,

including sexual harassment and retaliation, for all non-management employees in its offices.

h. Defendant will provide three hours of anti-discrimination training,

including sexual harassment and retaliation, for all its managers and supervisors.

c. Defendant will provide two hours of sensitivity training regarding gender

in the workplace for senior managers.

d. Defendant will thereafter provide one hour of anti-discrimination and

sensitivity training for all employees, including managerial staff, every 12 months, for the

duration of this Decree. This training shall reiterate, explain and answer questions about

Defendant's policy prohibiting harassment and discrimination.

e. The above-referenced training sessions shall be conducted by a provider

approved by the EEOC.

f.

Attendance sheets or records containing, but not limited to, the dates of

attendance, name of attendees, identity of instructor, and agendas for the training shall be

maintained at the location where each employee's personnel file is kept.

5

- .. Nd'v-09-06C. as02e: 326p:m04-cFvro-m0-3076-LDW-AKT Document 126 Filed 12/20/2006T-309PagP.e0076/0o0Bf 16F-493
9. Monitoring a. Defendant agrees to provide the EEOC with a list of all complaints of sex
discrimination, including harassment, harassment and/or retaliation, either fonnal or infonnal, including a summary of the steps taken during the investigation, the results ofthe investigation, and any disciplinary action taken. Defendant shall provide this summary every 12 months after the date of entry ofthis Decree.
b. Defendant agrees to forward to the EEOC any and all attendance sheets or records containing, but not limited to, the dates of attendance, name of attendees, identity of instructor, and agendas for the training. Defendant shall provide this information every 12 months after the date of entry of this Decree.
c. The EEOC may monitor Defendant's compliance with this Decree through the unannounced inspection of Defendant's premises, records and interviews with employees at reasonable times. Defendant shall make available for inspection and copying any records reasonably related to any of these areas, upon notice by the EEOC.
lO. Postings a. Within ten days after entry of this Decree, Defendant shall conspicuously
post and maintain in its offices in all places where employee notices are posted, a copy of the Notice of Lawsuit and Settlement, in the fonn and with the content specified in Exhibit D
hereto. b. Defendant shall also display the EEOC poster. as required by
federal law, outlining all applicable EEO-laws at all offices.
6

No"-09:C-0Sase• 022::0364pm-cv-0F3ro0m7- 6-LDW-AKT Document 126

T-309 P.OOB/OOB f-4~~
Filed 12/20/2006 Page 7 of 16

11. This Decree constitutes the complete understanding between the EEOC and

Defendant. No other promises or agreements shall be binding unless agreed to in writing and

signed by these parties. 12. This Decree will remain in effeCt for three years from the date of entry.

SO ORDERED, ADruDGED AND DECREED tbis

~
J< l) day of

. .\ lJ~

2006.

c(~~

APPROVED IN FORM AND CONTENT:

~,~

FORTHEEQUALE~LOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY CO:MMISSION
~~~

FOR DEFENDANT COMPREHENSNE
BENEFITS ONSULTANTS, me.

EHzabe Grossman Regional Attorney
Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street, 5th floor
New York, NY 10004

rian . Sokoloff, Esq. MiraJ.1da Sokoloff Sambursky Slone Verveniotis LLP 240 . eola Blvd.

Monique J. Roberts
Trial Attorney
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street, 5th floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 336-3704

Michael Russo, Individually and President of Comprehensive Benefits Consultants, Inc.

7

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 126 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 8 of 16
EXHIBITB

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 126 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 9 of 16
Comprehensive Benefits Consultants Corporation Equal Employment Opportunity and Anti-harassment Policy
It is the policy ofComprehensive Benefits Corporationto promote a productive work environment and not to tolerate verbal or physical conduct by any manager, supervisor, or employee that harasses, disrupts, or interferes with another's work perfonnance or that creates an intimidating, offensive, or hostile environment.
Managers, supervisors, and employees are expected to maintain a productive work environment that is free from harassing or disruptive activity. No fonn ofharassment will be tolerated, including harassment because ofthe person's race, color, national origin, religion, disability, pregnancy, age, military status, or sex. Special attention should be paid to the prohibition of sexual harassment and harassment on the basis of other protected categories which are listed above.
Each supervisor and manager has a responsibility to keep the workplace free from any fonn of harassment, and in particular, sexual harassment. No supervisor or manager is to threaten or insinuate, either explicitly or implicitly, that an employee's refusal or willingness to submit to sexual advances will affect the employee's tenns and conditions ofemployment.
Other sexually harassing or offensive conduct in the workplace, whether committed by supervisors, managers, non-supervisory employees, or non-employees, is also prohibited. This conduct includes:
(a) Unwanted physical contact or contact ofany kind, including sexual flirtations, touching, advances, or propositions;
(b) Verbal abuse of a sexual nature;

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 126 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 10 of 16
(c) Demeaning, insulting, intimidating, or sexually suggestive comments about an individual's dress or body;
(d) The display in the workplace of demeaning, insulting, intimidating, or sexually suggestive objects or pictures, including nude photographs.
(e) Demeaning, insulting, intimidating, or sexually suggestive written, recorded, or electronically transmitted messages.
(f) Jokes, remarks, comments, or conversations of a sexual nature that are sexually offensive and that contribute to the creation of a sexually hostile environment.
Any ofthe above conduct, or other offensive conduct, directed at individuals because oftheir race, national origin, religion, disability, pregnancy, age, color, sex, or military status is also prohibited.
Any employee who believes that a supervisor's, manager's, other employee's, or nonemployee's actions or words constitute unwelcome harassment has a responsibility to report or complain about the situation as soon as possible. The report or complaint should be made to the employee's supervisor, to the department head or the person in charge of Human Resources ifthe complaint involves the supervisor or manager.
Employees should use the attached form to report any complaints ofviolation ofthls Policy.
All complaints ofharassment are to be investigated promptly and in as impartial and confidential a manner as possible. The complainant will be interviewed in private. The interview ofcomplainant will be kept confidential and all findings are to be kept confidential and filed in the personnel f:tle of complainant. Employees are required to cooperate in any investigation. A timely investigation ofeach complaint should be conducted and the results
2

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 126 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 11 of 16
of the investigation shall be communicated to the parties involved. Retaliation against any employee for filing a complaint or participating in an investigation is strictly prohibited.
Complaints under this policy shall be addressed and resolved as promptly as practicable after the complaint is made.
Bearing in mind the Company's intolerance for illegal sexual and other harassment, the Human Resources Officer should endeavor to determine the most appropriate means for addressing the complaint. Options include: (l) investigating the complaint, as set forth below; (2) with the agreement of the parties, attempting to resolve the complaint through a form of alternative dispute resolution (e.g., mediation), or (3) determining that the facts of the complaint, even if true, would not constitute a violation of this policy. If the Human Resources Officer determines that the complaint does not constitute a violation of the company's policy, he or she must write the reason(s) for this determination. This document must be maintained in the personnel file ofthe complainant (along with the complaint) and in the investigative files housed in the office of the Human Resources Officer. The Human Resources Officer may designate another individual (either from within the Company or from outside the Company) to conduct or assist with the investigation or to manage an alternative dispute resolution process. Outside investigators shall have training, qualifications and experience as will, in the judgment of the Human Resources Officer, facilitate the investigation. Anyone designated to address an allegation must adhere to the requirements of this Policy and confer with the Human Resources Officer about his or her progress.
All complaints shall be made as promptly as feasible after the occurrence.
3

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 126 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 12 of 16
..
The investigator must promptly and thoroughly investigate all complaints of harassment and/or discrimination. It is the initial responsibility ofthe investigator to insure that the complaint is reduced to writing. The investigation should begin with a private and confidential interview with complainant as soon as possible. At the time this interview is scheduled, the complainant should be notified to produce any physical evidence, such as letters, notes, photos, or tapes at that session, if such physical evidence exists. If the complainant produces no physical evidence, the investigator is not to assume solely from the
absence ofphysical evidence that the complainant is not being truthful or that no harassment
has occurred and the investigation should proceed as outlined herein. The person accused ofthe harassment should be notified promptly after the complaint
is reduced to writing. The accused party and any witnesses mentioned by either party should be interviewed separately and in private. The investigator should request the accused party to respond in writing to each specific allegation.
At the conclusion ofan investigation, the investigator shall in writing: summarize the allegation, describe the basis for the investigator's conclusions, and set forth any recommended actions. The investigator should document the scope ofthe investigation even if the result is inconclusive.
The investigator shall furnish his report to the appropriate individual(s) in Company management.
Any employee, supervisor, or manager who is found to have violated the harassment policy will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including termination. The Company prohibits any form of retaliation against employees for bringing complaints or providing information about harassment or discrimination.
4

.
.. . .
. '
..

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 126 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 13 of 16

EXHIBIT C

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 126 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 14 of 16
"
MEMO TO ALL STAFF Nicholas Giarrusso has been appointed Human Resources Officer of CBC. He shall be responsible for the receipt and investigation of all complaints of employment discrimination and sexual harassment.

.

. Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT

...,." . p'ct-~-06 -

02:57pm

Frcm-

Document 126

Filed 12/20/2006 Page 15 of 16 T-156 P.016/017 F-175

EXHIBITD

Case 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT Document 126 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 16 of 16
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
This Notice is posted as part of a settlement entered into by Consent Decree between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Comprehensive Benefits Consultants, Inc., (CBC) in the case EEOC v. Comprehensive Benefits Consultants, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Civil Action No. 04-3076. EEOC brought a lawsuit against CBC alleging that CBC violated Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, in that it created and maintained a sexually offensive and hostile work environment for its female employees.
Federal law prohibits discrimination against an employee or an applicant for employment based on the religion, sex, race, color, national origin or disability status of the employee or applicant. Federal law also prohibits retaliation against people who have complained of or opposed discrimination. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination and can include sexually offensive jokes, comments and remarks which are unwelcome. Sexual harassment can also include unwanted physical contact.
In addition to requiring that CBC post this Notice, the Consent Decree enjoins CBC from engaging in any unlawful employment discrimination or retaliation against any person who exercises his or her rights under federal anti-discrimination laws; requires that CBC provide training on federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination to all current and future employees, management and staff; permits EEOC to monitor compliance with the Consent Decree and provide periodic reports to EEOC regarding any discrimination complaints made by employees; and requires CBC to appoint a Human Resources Officer who shall be responsible for investigating complaints of discrimination.
If you have a complaint of employment discrimination or questions regarding laws prohibiting employment discrimination, you may contact:
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street New York, New York 10004-2112 Phone: 800-699-4000 TTY (for persons with hearing impairments): 800-669-6820
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE CHANGED IT MUST REMAIN POSTED UNTIL December 13, 2009

 </s> Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...
CLOSED, MAGAPP
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Comprehensive Benefits Consultants Assigned to: Senior-Judge Leonard D. Wexler Referred to: Magistrate-Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 07/21/2004 Date Terminated: 12/20/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Mediator
Robert Lewis TERMINATED: 11/22/2004

represented by Robert Lewis Office of Robert Lewis 53 Burd St Nyack, NY 10960 845-358-7100 Fax: 845-353-6943 Email: lewlaw1@aol.com TERMINATED: 11/22/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Katherine E. Bissell Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NY District Office 33 Whitehall Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 212-336-3704 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monique Joy Roberts Equal Employment Opp. Comm. NY District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 336-3704 Fax: (212) 336-3623 Email: monique.roberts@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. O'Brien

1 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

V. Defendant Comprehensive Benefits Consultants

EEOC 33 Whitehall Street 5th floor New York, NY 10004 212-336-3694 Fax: 212-336-3623 Email: michael.Obrien@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brian S. Sokoloff Miranda & Sokoloff, LLP 240 Mineola Boulevard Mineola, NY 11501 516-741-7676 Fax: 516-741-9060 Email: bsokoloff@msssv.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven C. Stern Miranda & Sokoloff, LLP 240 Mineola Blvd. The Esposito Building Mineola, NY 11501 (516) 741-7676 ext. 311 Fax: (516) 741-9060 Email: sstern@msssv.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Verveniotis Miranda Sokoloff Sambursky Slone Verveniotis LLP 240 Mineola Boulevard Mineola, NY 11501 516-741-7676 Email: sverveniotis@msssv.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/21/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Comprehensive Benenits Consultants, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Duong, Susan) (Entered: 07/23/2004)

2 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

07/21/2004 07/21/2004
07/29/2004 08/02/2004 08/04/2004 08/04/2004 08/04/2004 08/26/2004 08/27/2004
08/27/2004 08/30/2004

Summons Issued as to Comprehensive Benenits Consultants. (Duong, Susan) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
2 Case set to ECF status. All civil actions before this Judge are ECF matters. It is MANDATORY that you file all original documents electronically. Please refer to the Judge's Individual Rules. From this point forward, original documents are REQUIRED to be filed electronically and forward a hard copy, labeled courtesy copy, to chambers. The Judges' Individual Rules of Chambers and further information on ECF may be found at the website for the Eastern District of New York at www.nyed.uscourts.gov. (Duong, Susan) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
4 ANSWER to Complaint filed by Comprehensive Benenits Consultants.(Montero, Edher) (Entered: 08/04/2004)
3 ORDER setting initial conference for 8/27/04 at 11:30 a.m. Signed by Judge James Orenstein on 8/2/04. CM to defendant(Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
5 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity. Comprehensive Benenits Consultants waiver sent on 7/24/2004, answer due 9/22/2004. (Montero, Edher) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Comprehensive Benenits Consultants waiver sent on 7/22/2004, answer due 9/20/2004. (Montero, Edher) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Montero, Edher) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
7 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
8 Minute Entry for proceedings held before James Orenstein : Initial Conference Hearing held on 8/27/2004. The next status conference will be held on November 22, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE: The case will be referred to mediation with the consent of the parties. Counsel are directed to contact the undersigned at the earlier of the conclusion of the mediation process or three business days before the next scheduled conference as to whether the conference should be re-scheduled. A discovery plan and other deadlines will be set at the next conference. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
9 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation. Signed by Judge James Orenstein on August 27, 2004. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
10 MEDIATION INSTRUCTIONS sent to Counsel. Letter of Instructions document attached. COUNSELS are to schedule the mediation and confirm in writing by 09/14/2004 to Gerald P. Lepp, ADR Administrator, the name of the mediator and the date of the first mediation session. Counsels are to confer with each other and to speak with the Mediator in selecting a Mediator and the Mediation session date(s). See the attached instructions. See the web pages: http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/adr/ http://www.nyed.circ2.dcn/dadr/ Register for ECF if you have not yet done so. Thank you. See: http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/CM_ECF/ECF_FAQ/ecf_faq.html(Lepp,

3 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

09/15/2004 09/15/2004
09/27/2004
11/18/2004 11/19/2004 11/22/2004

Gerald)(dc) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
12 Selection of Mediator. Robert Lewis has been selected.(Lepp, Gerald)(dc) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
13 Selection of MEDIATOR. Robert Lewis, Esq. has been selected as Mediator. The first mediation session is scheduled for 11/10/2004 at 10:30 a.m. at the Eastern District of New York Courthouse in CENTRAL ISLIP. COUNSELS must file with the Mediator: 1) immediately, their client's Complaint or Answer together with their respective client's Automatic Disclosure Statements; and 2) by 11/03/2004 their client's mediation statement outlining facts, legal issues, prior settlement discussions, and the name and title of the client representative with settlement authority who will attend the mediation session in person. Attendance in person is required of the trial counsel, insurance adjustor, and client representative with full settlement authority. The Mediator?s contact information is: Robert Lewis, Esq., 20 Sinclair Drive, Kings Point, NY, 10024; Tel.: 516-482-1448; email: Lewis202@optonline.net (Lepp, Gerald)(dc) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
14 SCHEDULING of Mediation update per Miranda Sokoloff LLP letter dated Sept. 23, 2004. [The LETTER is attached.] Mediation Date is November 17, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. Robert Lewis, Esq. has been selected as Mediator. The mediation session is now scheduled for 11/17/2004 at 10:30 a.m. at the Eastern District of New York Courthouse in CENTRAL ISLIP. COUNSELS must file with the Mediator: 1) immediately, their client's Complaint or Answer together with their respective client's Automatic Disclosure Statements; and 2) by 11/10/2004 their client's mediation statement outlining facts, legal issues, prior settlement discussions, and the name and title of the client representative with settlement authority who will attend the mediation session in person. Attendance in person is required of the trial counsel, insurance adjustor, and client representative with full settlement authority. The Mediator's contact information is: Robert Lewis, Esq., 20 Sinclair Drive, Kings Point, NY, 10024; Tel.:516-482-1448; email: Lewis202@optonline.net(Lepp, Gerald)(dc) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
REPORT of Mediation. Although one mediation session was held, this case did not settle. Accordingly, this case is returned to the assigned judges.Attorney Questionnaires due by 12/2/2004.(Lepp, Gerald) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
15 Letter from Monique J. Roberts, EEOC Trial Attorney to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein Regarding Request for Leave to amend EEOC's complaint to add another retaliation claim. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before James Orenstein : Status Conference held on 11/22/2004. The next status conference will be held on February 22, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. A pretrial conference will be held on May 23, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE: Plaintiff will serve a proposed amended complaint by Wednesday, November 24, 2004. By the same date, plaintiff will either provide the names of all persons within the scope or Rule 26(a)(1) or submit a letter motion seeking a protective order. In light of the time wasted on mediation that appears never to have had a realistic prospect of resolving the case, I will enter a scheduling order that contemplates the case being ready for trial in six months; if the parties seek an modification of that schedule they must make a timely written application setting forth the steps they

4 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

11/22/2004
11/23/2004 11/23/2004 11/23/2004 11/23/2004 12/02/2004 02/01/2005 02/02/2005 02/03/2005 02/03/2005 02/04/2005

have taken to comply and good cause to believe that they cannot complete discovery in the allotted time through diligent efforts. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
17 SCHEDULING ORDER: First Request for Production of Documents or Request for Interrogatories due by: December 27, 2004. Deadline for Joinder of Additional Parties: January 31, 2005. Deadline for Amendment of Pleadings: January 31, 2005. Status Conference: February 22, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. All discovery to be completed by: April 18, 2005. Dispositive motion process started by: May 2, 2005. Pretrial Order to be filed by: May 16, 2005. Pretrial Conference: May 23, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. Signed by Judge James Orenstein on November 22, 2004. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
18 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B)(Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
19 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
20 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
21 Letter from Monique J. Roberts to Judge James Orenstein Regarding names of claimants. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
22 RESPONSE to Motion re 18 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint, 19 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint, 20 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Comprehensive Benenits Consultants. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
23 Letter from Monique J. Roberts, Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein Regarding Defendant's Failure to Make Disclosure or Cooperate in Discovery. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
ENDORSED ORDER on 23 Letter -- A telephone conference is scheduled for 2/8/05 at 2:00 p.m. to discuss plaintiff's application. Plaintiff's counsel shall initiate the call. Approved by Judge James Orenstein on 2/2/05. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
24 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff to Hon. James Orenstein Regarding plaintiff's letter to the Court, dated February 1, 2005. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
25 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein Regarding defendant's request for an order compelling plaintiff to answer interrogatories and document requests. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
26 ORDER RE: 18 Motion to Amend -- For the reasons set forth in this order, the Commission's motion to amend the complaint to assert an additional claim of retaliation is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Commission may renew its application if, by February 14, 2005, it submits a revised proposed amended complaint that alleges in good faith that the filing of Russo's defamation claim is attributable to CBC. Signed by Judge James Orenstein on 2/4/05. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 02/04/2005)

5 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

02/06/2005 02/07/2005 02/10/2005 02/10/2005 02/10/2005 02/11/2005
02/11/2005

27 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein Regarding request for production of documents claimed to be privileged. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 02/06/2005)
28 ORDER -- The status conference is rescheduled from February 8, 2005 to February 11, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. The conference will be held in Courtroom 920 before the undersigned. All parties shall appear in person. Signed by Judge James Orenstein on 2/7/05. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
29 Letter from Monique J. Roberts, Trial Attorney EEOC to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein Regarding EEOC's Opposition to Defendant's Letter Motion to Compel Discovery. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
30 Letter from Monique J. Roberts, Trial Attorney EEOC to Magistrate James Orenstein Regarding EEOC's Opposition to Defendant's Demand to Disclose Privileged Documents. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
31 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 26 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,,,,, Complaint. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
32 Minute Entry for proceedings held before James Orenstein : Status Conference held on 2/11/2005. SCHEDULING: The status conference previously scheduled for February 22, 2005 is cancelled. The next pretrial conference will be held on May 23, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE: (1) Defendant will respond to plaintiff's Document Request ("DR") 1 with the relevant personnel files. (2) Plaintiff's request to compel production of defendant's contracts with Phoenix and Guardian (DR 14) is GRANTED. (3) Plaintiff's request to compel production of tax records (DR 16) is DENIED. (4) Plaintiff's request to compel further responses to Interrogatories 15-16 is DENIED. (5) Defendant's application to compel production of documents that continue to be subject to a claim of privilege or to compel further clarification of the privilege log is DENIED in light of the information in plaintiff's counsel's letter of February 10, 2005. (6) Defendant's request for authorizations for the release of records held by the described potential witnesses (DR 7) is GRANTED, subject to the parties agreeing on an appropriate protective order. (7) Defendant's request for cell phone and email information is resolved as follows: (a) The cell phone records will be subpoenaed and defendant's counsel will identify, by name or telephone number, the relevant information being sought therein; plaintiff's counsel will provide redacted copies of the records showing that relevant information. (b) The plaintiff will provide all relevant emails as requested; defendant's application to subpoena emails from the service provider is DENIED without prejudice to renew if there is reason to believe that such a subpoena will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence not otherwise available. (8) The defendant's remaining requests to compel discovery are denied on the understanding that plaintiff will supplement its responses to the requests at issue notwithstanding the objections it has previously raised and without waiving those objections. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 02/11/2005)
ORDER re 18 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 31 Amended Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The revised version of the proposed amended complaint cures the pleading defect noted in my order of February 4,

6 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

02/28/2005 03/03/2005 03/04/2005 03/07/2005 03/08/2005
03/09/2005 03/10/2005 03/10/2005 03/10/2005 03/11/2005
03/15/2005

2005 26. Accordlingly, the motion to amend the complaint is now GRANTED. Signed by Judge James Orenstein on February 11, 2005. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 02/11/2005)
33 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff to Hon. James Orenstein Regarding request to so order a subpoena. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
34 STIPULATION and Order Governing the Treatment of Confidental Material by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
ORDER re 34 Stipulation -- The Stipulation is "So Ordered." Approved by Judge James Orenstein on 3/4/05. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 03/04/2005)
35 Letter MOTION to Quash Subpoena of Robert M. Bursky, Esq. by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
ORDER RE: 35 Motion to Quash -- Defendant shall respond to the motion by 3/11/05. A conference is scheduled for 3/15/05 at 10:30 a.m. to discuss plaintiff's motion. Approved by Judge James Orenstein on 3/8/05. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 03/08/2005)
36 RESPONSE in Opposition re 35 Letter MOTION to Quash Subpoena of Robert M. Bursky, Esq. filed by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
37 Letter from Monique J. Roberts to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein Regarding scheduling of depositions. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
38 Letter MOTION to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum for Craig Addeo by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
39 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 2/11/05 before Judge Michael L. Orenstein. Court Transcriber: Ron Rudolph, 620 Riverside Dr., Fairfield, CT 06430. (Montero, Edher) (Entered: 03/14/2005)
ORDER re 37 Letter -- The application is moot. The parties must comply with any proper notice of deposition (and non-party witnesses must likewise comply with any proper subpoena) unless it is withdrawn on consent or the party resisting the notice (or the non-party witness resisting the subpoena) obtains a protective order from the court. Approved by Judge James Orenstein on 3/11/05. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 03/11/2005)
40 Minute Entry for proceedings held before James Orenstein : Status Conference held on 3/15/2005. SCHEDULING: (1) The next status conference will be held on May 31, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. (2) A pretrial conference will be held on July 25, 2005, at 11:00 a.m. THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE: (1) For the reasons discussed on the record at the conference, plaintiff's motion to quash the subpoena on claimant Addeo's attorney is GRANTED. I conclude that the claimant and Susan Nally sought the advice of counsel together and had a common interest, that their meeting with the attorney was therefore privileged, and that there has not been an effective waiver of claimant Addeo's privilege to allow the deposition to proceed. To the extent that there were limited waivers by

7 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

03/15/2005
03/16/2005 03/17/2005 03/24/2005 03/29/2005 03/29/2005 03/30/2005

Ms. Addeo -- such as counsel's explanation of what the initials EEOC stand for and his belief that documentary evidence and witnesses would be important -they do not constitute a waiver as to all related communications. Further, allowing inquiry into the limited areas as to which there has been a waiver would not be reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly since the opinion of an attorney as to the persuasiveness of evidence is not admissible. (2) Defendant will respond by March 17, 2005, to plaintiff's application to quash the subpoena on Craig Addeo. (3) The parties will submit portions of the transcript of the deposition of Fran Angelone relevant to my consideration of plaintiff's renewed application to have me review in camera documents claimed by plaintiff to be privileged. (4) By March 22, 2005, plaintiff will either produce Laura Hart's diary, as discussed at the conference, or confirm that it no longer exists. If it is produced and there is a question about its provenance, defendant will make further application as appropriate. If such further application is predicated on assertions about Ms. Hart's credibility, then Mr. Sokoloff must be available as a witness rather than as counsel to pursue the application. (5) Discovery is extended by 60 days. I will enter a separate amended case management and scheduling order reflecting the new deadlines. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
41 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference: May 31, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. All discovery to be completed by: June 20, 2005. Dispositive motion process started by: July 5, 2005. Pretrial Order to be filed by: July 19, 2005. Pretrial Conference: July 25, 2005, at 11:00 a.m. Signed by Judge James Orenstein on March 15, 2005. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
42 RESPONSE to Motion re 38 Letter MOTION to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum for Craig Addeo filed by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 03/16/2005)
43 Letter MOTION for Protective Order regarding privileged conversations between Susan Nally, Jean Marie Addeo and Attorney Robert Bursky by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 03/17/2005)
45 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4/15/05 before Judge J. Orenstein, USMJ. (Terry Gribben's Transcripton Service) (Imrie, Robert) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
44 RESPONSE to Motion re 43 Letter MOTION for Protective Order regarding privileged conversations between Susan Nally, Jean Marie Addeo and Attorney Robert Bursky filed by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
46 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants re 40 Status Conference,,,,,,,,, (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
47 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Re: 38 Motion to Quash and 43 Motion for Protective Order -- plaintiff EEOC's application for a protective order and its motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum directed to Craig Addeo are both DENIED. (see attached order). Signed by Judge James Orenstein on 3/30/05. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 03/30/2005)

8 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

04/04/2005 04/06/2005 04/08/2005
04/11/2005 04/11/2005 04/12/2005
04/18/2005 04/19/2005 04/20/2005
04/25/2005

48 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein Regarding Laura Hart's computer. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
49 Letter from Monique J. Roberts to Magistrate James Orenstein Regarding EEOC's Opposition to Defendant's request for a computer expert's examination of Laura Hart's home computer. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
ORDER re 48 Letter -- A telephone conference is scheduled for April 12, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. to discuss defendant's April 4 application to have an expert inspect Ms. Hart's computer. Defendant's counsel shall initiate the call. Additionally, prior to the conference, defendant shall file Ms. Hart's computer generated diary, as it was not attached to its April 4 application. Approved Judge James Orenstein on 4/8/05. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 04/08/2005)
50 Letter from Steven C. Stern to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein Regarding enclosing Hart's diary entries. (Stern, Steven) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
51 Letter from Monique J. Roberts to the Honorable Leonard D. Wexler Regarding Plaintiff EEOC's request that Magistrate Orenstein's Order of March 15, 2005 quashing the subpoena duces tecum served on Attorney Robert Bursky be upheld.. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
52 Minute Entry for proceedings held before James Orenstein : Telephone Conference held on 4/12/2005. SCHEDULING: (1) The next status conference will be held on May 31, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. (2) A pretrial conference will be held on July 25, 2005, at 11:00 a.m. THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE: (1) The defendant's application to allow an expert to examine Ms. Hart's computer (docket entry 48) is DENIED. (2) By April 19, 2005, plaintiff's counsel will submit a letter reporting on (1) the date of last modification of the computer file for the diary indicated on the appropriate directory of Ms. Hart's computer, and (2) whether the EEOC has ever made a request for documents to Ms. Hart to which the diary would have been responsive and, if so, whether Ms. Hart did provide the diary in response. Based on the contents of that report, I will consider whether there is good cause to revisit the preceding denial of the defendant's application. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
53 MOTION to Compel Craig Addeo to respond to subpoena duces tecum by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 04/18/2005)
54 Letter from Monique J. Roberts to Magistrate James Orenstein Regarding Laura Hart's computer diary. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
55 ORDER Re: 53 Motion to Compel -- The relief requested in the instant motion would have no independent effect, and I decline to issue such a meaningless order. The motion is therefore DENIED as moot. Counsel for CBC is directed to serve a copy of this order on Mr. Addeo and to file a certificate attesting to such service. (see attached order) Signed by Judge James Orenstein on 4/20/05. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 04/20/2005)
57 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: This court has reviwed the parties' submissions and the order of the Mag/Judge and concludes that the order appealed from should be affirmed. Accordingly, defendant's objections are hereby overruled and the Order of Mag/Judge James Orenstein dtd. 3/15/05 is affirmed. SO ORDERED (signed by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 4/25/05).

9 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

04/26/2005 05/11/2005 05/16/2005 05/17/2005 05/17/2005 05/18/2005
05/27/2005 05/31/2005

c/m(Montero, Edher) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
56 MOTION to Compel non-party Craig Addeo to respond to CBC's subpeona duces tecum by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Verveniotis, Steven) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
58 Letter MOTION for Protective Order prohibiting the deposition of EEOC Trial Attorney Robert Rose by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
59 Letter dtd. 5/13/05 from Craig Addeo to USMJ J. Orenstein RE: Requesting that the subpoena served on 5/4/05 be quashed. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
60 RESPONSE in Opposition re 58 Letter MOTION for Protective Order prohibiting the deposition of EEOC Trial Attorney Robert Rose filed by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
61 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein Regarding Craig Addeo request to quash subpoena to him. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
62 ORDER re 58, 59, 60, 61 -- EEOC's application for a protective order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, in that CBC may take the deposition of attorney Rose, but only as to a very limited subject and only in writing. I further ORDER that CBC shall report by May 25, 2005, as to whether it will either take Mr. Rose's deposition pursuant to the preceding protective order or seek to challenge in any way the veracity of Ms. Hart's testimony that Mr. Sokoloff opined that the tape was inadmissible, and also ORDER that the Commission shall report by the same date as to whether it will seek to offer evidence about the tape at the trial of this case. Further, Craig Addeo's motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum issued by CBC is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, in that Mr. Addeo must produce only those documents reflecting money or property given to Mrs. Addeo by Mr. Addeo's business (and not by him in his individual capacity); the subpoena is quashed as to all other items. Counsel for CBC is directed to serve a copy of this order on Mr. Addeo. Signed by Judge James Orenstein on 5/18/05. (See Attached Order) (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 05/18/2005)
63 Minute Entry for proceedings held before James Orenstein. Discovery Conference held on 5/27/2005. THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE: The parties called from a deposition with a dispute regarding claimant Fran Angilone's medical records; during the telephone conference, the parties resolved the dispute on their own. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
64 Minute Entry for proceedings held before James Orenstein : Telephone Conference held on 5/31/2005. SCHEDULING: The next pretrial conference will be held on July 25, 2005, at 11:00 a.m. THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE: (1) The deadline for defendant to report as to whether it will take Mr. Rose's deposition on written questions (see Docket Entry 62) is extended until June 24, 2005. The parties will complete all other discovery and seek to settle the case; if they fail to settle, and if CBC thereafter decides to take Mr. Rose's testimony, I will schedule further proceedings as appropriate to address defendant's counsel's role as a potential witness. (2) Prior to the pretrial

10 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

06/01/2005 06/02/2005
06/03/2005 06/06/2005 06/06/2005
06/06/2005 07/13/2005 07/13/2005 07/14/2005

conference, all parties must submit by mail or fax (not by ECF) a one-page, ex parte settlement position to the undersigned. These statements will be treated as confidential, and will not be docketed. Meaningful settlement discussions will occur at this conference; clients or other persons with full settlement authority must be available by telephone. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
65 MOTION for Contempt against Craig Addeo by all defendants. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
66 ORDER re: 65 Motion for Contempt -- Mr. Addeo is directed to respond to defendant's motion to compel by June 6, 2005. A conference is scheduled for June 8, 2005 to discuss defendant's motion. The conference will be held in Courtroom 920. Mr. Addeo shall appear with the records at issue for the Court's review. Mr. Sokoloff is directed to serve this order on Mr. Addeo and file a certificate of service stating same. Approved by Judge James Orenstein on 6/2/05.(Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 06/02/2005)
67 Letter dtd. 6/1/05 from Craig Addeo RE: subpoena. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
ORDER re 65 MOTION for Contempt and 67 Letter -- The conference scheduled for June 8, 2005 is cancelled. Approved by Judge James Orenstein on 6/6/05. Mr. Sokoloff is directed to serve this order on Mr. Addeo upon receipt.(Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
68 Minute Entry for proceedings held before James Orenstein: Discovery Hearing held on 6/6/2005. THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE: I resolved two disputes that arose during the continued deposition of claimant Jean Marie Addeo. (1) The plaintiff's instruction to the deponent not to answer questions seeking the content of marital communications was sustained, without prejudice to the defendant seeking to overcome the privilege by submitting reason to conclude that the deponent has waived it. (2) In light of the conduct of defendant's principal, Mr. Russo, during the deposition, I ruled that the deposition would be allowed to continue for another half-hour only without Mr. Russo present. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
69 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein Regarding cancellation of conference. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
70 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff to Hon. James Orenstein Regarding plaintiff not complying with the Court's order. (Verveniotis, Steven) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
71 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff, Esq. to Hon. James Orenstein Regarding permission for further deposition of plaintiff. (Verveniotis, Steven) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
72 ORDER re 70 Letter, 71 Letter -- A telephone status conference is scheduled for July 19, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. to discuss CBC's applications. Any responses to CBC's respective applications shall be filed, with a courtesy copy delivered to me by fax, no later than 12:00 p.m. on July 18, 2005. The EEOC is directed to serve this order on Mr. Addeo upon receipt and file a certificate of service stating same. Signed by Judge James Orenstein on 7/14/05. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 07/14/2005)

11 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

07/14/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/18/2005 07/18/2005
07/25/2005
08/17/2005 08/23/2005 09/08/2005 09/08/2005 09/10/2005

73 Letter from EEOC to Magistrate James Orenstein Regarding EEOC's opposition to Defendant's request for a third deposition of Jean Marie Addeo. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
74 Letter from EEOC to Magistrate Orenstein Regarding EEOC's request for an adjournemnt of the July 19, 2005 conference. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
75 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Magistrate Orenstein's Order of July 14, 2005 on Craig Addeo (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
76 Letter dtd. 7/18/05 from Craig Addeo to Brian Sokoloff RE: Responding to your letter dtd. 6/20/05 (attached as an exhibit to Docket Entry 70). (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
ORDER re 74 Letter -- The application to adjourn the July 19 conference is granted. The pretrial conference remains scheduled for July 25, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. Additionally, in light of Mr. Addeo's submission, Docket Entry ("DE") 76, it appears that the defendant's request for relief, DE 70, is moot. Accordingly, Mr. Addeo need not attend the conference on July 25, 2005. Ex parte settlement positions shall be faxed to me by July 22, 2005. Approved by Judge James Orenstein on 7/18/05. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
77 Minute Entry for proceedings held before James Orenstein : Status Conference held on 7/25/2005. SCHEDULING: The next pretrial conference will be held on September 26, 2005, at 3:00 p.m. [NOTE: The time of the conference has been changed to 3:00 p.m. to avoid a scheduling conflict.] THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE: (1) The defendants' application to take further deposition testimony from Ms Addeo was denied. (2) The scheduling order is further amended as follows: (a) Defendants written deposition questions for Mr. Rose to be served by August 8, 2005. (b) Plaintiff to serve Mr. Rose's answers by August 15, 2005. (c) Joint Pretrial Order to be filed by September 12, 2005. (3) The parties discussed settlement in good faith but did not reach an agreement. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
78 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff to Hon. James Orenstein Regarding request for order directing Robert Rose to answer written deposition questions. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
ORDER re 78 Letter -- The application is granted as unopposed. Approved by Judge James Orenstein on 8/23/05. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 08/23/2005)
79 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff to Magistrate Judge Orenstein Regarding request for extension of time for parties to file pretrial order. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
80 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff to Hon. Leonard D. Wexler Regarding request for premotion conference. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
81 Letter from EEOC to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein Regarding filing the joint pre-trial order. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 09/10/2005)

12 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

09/10/2005 09/12/2005 09/13/2005 09/27/2005 09/28/2005 09/28/2005 10/05/2005 10/06/2005 10/06/2005 10/07/2005
10/07/2005 10/07/2005

82 Letter from EEOC to District Court Judge Leonard Wexler Regarding EEOC's opposition to Defendant's request for a pre-motion conference to file a motion for summary judgment. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 09/10/2005)
ORDER re 81 and 79 Letters -- The pretrial order shall be filed by September 28, 2005. The pretrial conference is rescheduled from September 26, 2005 to October 7, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. Approved by Judge James Orenstein on 9/12/05. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
83 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff to Hon. Leonard D. Wexler Regarding pre-motion conference. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
84 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint PreTrial Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (O'Brien, Michael) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
ORDER re 84 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint PreTrial Order -- The pretrial order shall be filed by October 5, 2005. Approved by Judge James Orenstein on 09/28/05. (Adams-Ciardullo, Diana) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
Motions terminated: 84 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File, terminated as per Order entered on 9/28/05. (Guy, Alicia) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
85 Proposed Pretrial Order Jointly Filed by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants and by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 10/05/2005)
86 Proposed Pretrial Order Amended and Jointly filed by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants and by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
ORDER -- The pretrial conference scheduled for October 7, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. is rescheduled for October 7, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. Approved by Judge James Orenstein on 10/06/05. (Adams-Ciardullo, Diana) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
87 Minute Entry for proceedings held before James Orenstein : Final Pretrial Conference held on 10/7/2005. SCHEDULING: The next telephone status conference will be held on April 24, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. THE FOLLOWING RULINGS WERE MADE: (1) Discovery is complete and the parties have submitted a joint pretrial order that substantially complies with Judge Wexler's individual practice rules. I will enter a separate order certifying the case as ready for trial. (2) The pretrial order reflects several disputes based on discovery rather than evidentiary issues. At the next conference, to the extent those issues remain pending, the parties will discuss a schedule for litigating motions to preclude as a sanction for failure to provide discovery. (3) The parties discussed settlement but did not reach an agreement. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
88 ORDER: the joint pretrial order is accepted for filing and the action is deemed ready for trial. Ordered by Judge James Orenstein on October 7, 2005. (Orenstein, James) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
91 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Leonard D. Wexler on 10/7/05 at 11:00 am. Case called. Counsel for all parties present. Pre Motion Conference held. Deft's request to file motion for summary judgment is granted. Deft to serve summary judgment papers within 6 weeks. Plaintiff to respond within one month. Deft to reply within five days thereafter. Trial set for July, 2006. (Montero,

13 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

10/24/2005
10/24/2005 11/10/2005 11/14/2005 11/15/2005
01/13/2006 01/17/2006 01/30/2006 01/31/2006 02/15/2006 02/17/2006 02/17/2006
02/17/2006 02/17/2006

Edher) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
89 LETTER dtd 10/18/05 from Counsel for Plaintiff to Judge Wexler re: It is my understanding that Defendant has six weeks from October 7, 2005, the date of the conference, to file its motion-not six weeks after Mr. Sokoloff's trial ends, as he contends. (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
90 ORDER re 89 Letter. The time in which to make a motion runs from the date of the conference held on 10/7/06. . Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 10/24/05. (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
92 Letter from Brian S. Sokoloff to Judge Leonard D. Wexler Regarding request for extension of time to file summary judgment motion. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
93 Letter from Monique J. Roberts to Judge Wexler Regarding extension of time to respond to Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
94 ORDER GRANTING the 92 Letter Application for an extension of time for the defendant to file its motion for summary judgment to December 2, 2005. The Court also grants the request of the EEOC for the extension requested in the letter of 11/14/05.. Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 11/15/05. (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
95 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant's Summary Judgement Motion by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
ENDORSED ORDER granting 95 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Request GRANTED. (Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 1/17/06). c/m eod #95 (Montero, Edher) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
96 Letter requesting additional time to submit reply to summary judgment motion by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Stern, Steven) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
ENDORSED ORDER re 96 Letter requesting extension of time to file Reply papers: Request GRANTED. (Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 1/31/06). c/m eod #96(Montero, Edher) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
97 Letter requesting to file a 15-page reply brief by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Stern, Steven) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
98 Notice of MOTION for Summary Judgment by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Stern, Steven) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
99 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 98 Notice of MOTION for Summary Judgment Declaration of Steven C. Stern by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice regarding the filing of exhibits in paper form)(Stern, Steven) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
100 MEMORANDUM in Support re 98 Notice of MOTION for Summary Judgment by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Stern, Steven) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
101 REPLY in Support re 98 Notice of MOTION for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Law by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Stern, Steven)

14 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

02/17/2006 02/17/2006
02/17/2006 02/17/2006 02/17/2006 02/27/2006 03/30/2006 04/10/2006 04/24/2006
05/08/2006 05/12/2006

(Entered: 02/17/2006)
102 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT re 98 Notice of MOTION for Summary Judgment by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Stern, Steven) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
103 REPLY in Support re 98 Notice of MOTION for Summary Judgment Reply Declaration of Steven C. Stern by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A" to Reply Declaration# 2 Exhibit "B" to Reply Declaration# 3 Exhibit "C" to Reply Declaration# 4 Exhibit "D" to Reply Declaration)(Stern, Steven) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
104 RESPONSE in Opposition re 98 Notice of MOTION for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Law filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
105 RESPONSE in Opposition re 98 Notice of MOTION for Summary Judgment Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Disputed Material Facts filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
106 RESPONSE in Opposition re 98 Notice of MOTION for Summary Judgment Declaration of Monique J. Roberts, Esq. filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
107 Letter to correct electronic filing error (signature pages attached) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
Mag. Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson added. Mag. Judge James Orenstein no longer assigned to case. (Capobianco, Jean) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
108 MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 98 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by JudgeLeonard D. Wexler on 4/10/06. cm (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before A. Kathleen Tomlinson : Status Conference held on 4/24/2006. The Joint Pretrial Order raises certain issues that need to be resolved prior to this case proceeding to trial. The parties are directed to file and serve a letter, no longer than three pages, by May 8, 2006 setting forth their position regarding the outstanding discovery issues. A conference will be held on May 12, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. to address those issues. So Ordered by Magistrate-Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson. (Jacobwitz, Beth) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
109 Letter regarding unresolved discovery issues by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
110 Minute Entry and Order for proceedings held before A. Kathleen Tomlinson : Final Pretrial Conference held on 5/12/2006. 1. The preliminary settlement discussions which were conducted today indicate that further discussions would be productive. Accordingly, a formal settlement conference is scheduled for June 7, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. Defendants' counsel is directed to bring a representative of his client with settlement authority to the conference. 2. I have reviewed the parties' Joint Pretrial Order in detail and found that there are certain issues that need to be addressed. The parties have agreed to submit by June 30, 2006 a

15 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

05/22/2006 05/31/2006 06/01/2006 06/02/2006 06/05/2006
07/13/2006 07/25/2006
08/21/2006 08/21/2006
09/21/2006

revised Pretrial Order taking into account the issues discussed at today's conference. 3. Plaintiff objects to certain witnesses set forth by Defendant on the Pretrial Order. This objection is properly raised as a sanctions motion to preclude testimony at trial. Any motion to preclude, if Plaintiff determines one should be made, must be filed by May 22, 2006. SEE ATTACHED ORDER. (Jacobwitz, Beth) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
111 Letter informing Judge Tomlinson that EEOC served Defendant with its Motion to Preclude the Testimony of unidentified witnsesses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
112 Letter to Withdraw Motion to Preclude testimony of Undisclosed Witnsses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
113 Letter to Magistrate Judge Tomlinson to reschedule settlement conference by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
114 Letter respectfully informing the Court of EEOC's availability by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
ORDER re 114 Letter filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and 113 Letter filed by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants requesting adjournment of June 7, 2006 settlement conference. At the request of the parties, the conference scheduled for June 7, 2006 is adjourned to June 15, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. Ordered by Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 06/05/06. (Jacobwitz, Beth) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
115 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on May 12, 2006 before Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson. Court Reporter: Typing at you doorstep. (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
116 Minute Entry for proceedings held before A. Kathleen Tomlinson : Status Conference held on 7/25/2006. The parties requested additional time to complete the necessary documentation supporting the settlement of this action. That request is granted. A conference will be held on August 22, 2006 in the event a final Stipulation of Dismissal is not filed prior to that date. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson. SEE ATTACHED ORDER. (Jacobwitz, Beth) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
117 Letter jointly requesting adjournment of Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
ORDER re 117 Letter filed jointly requesting adjournment of August 22, 2006 conference. In light of the representations made by the parties concerning the progress made toward settling this matter, the conference scheduled for August 22, 2006 is adjourned to September 22, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. If a stipulation of dismissal is filed prior to September 22, 2006, the conference shall be cancelled. Ordered by Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 08/21/06. (Jacobwitz, Beth) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
118 Letter requesting adjournment of conference by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants. (Sokoloff, Brian) (Entered: 09/21/2006)

16 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

09/22/2006 09/25/2006
10/05/2006 10/13/2006 10/24/2006 11/01/2006 11/07/2006

ORDER re 118 Letter filed by Comprehensive Benefits Consultants requesting adjournment of the conference scheduled for September 22, 2006. The parties' request that the conference be adjourned is DENIED, however, it may be conducted by telephone. Counsel for Defendant shall initiate the call. Ordered by Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 09/22/06. (Jacobwitz, Beth) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
119 Minute Entry for proceedings held before A. Kathleen Tomlinson : Telephone Status Conference held on 9/22/2006. This conference was held in an effort to assist the parties in memorializing the settlement in this action agreed to in principle in June 2006. There were four issues raised by Plaintiffs' counsel which needed to be addressed. The EEOC will notify Defendants of their position with respect to training programs by September 25, 2006. A telephone conference will be held on October 5, 2006 to discuss issues remaining open at that point. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson. SEE ATTACHED ORDER. (Jacobwitz, Beth) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
120 Minute Entry for proceedings held before A. Kathleen Tomlinson : Status Conference held on 10/5/2006. The parties report that progress has been made toward finalizing the settlement in this matter and that a final draft of the settlement agreement and consent decree has been circulated. A conference call is scheduled for October 13, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. to check on the status of the final settlement documentation. Counsel for Plaintiff is to initiate the call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson. (Jacobwitz, Beth) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
121 Minute Entry for proceedings held before A. Kathleen Tomlinson : Status Conference held on 10/13/2006. A conference call is scheduled for October 30, 2006 at 11:30 a.m. to confirm that all agreements have been finalized. In the event the Stipulation of Discontinuance is filed prior to that time, the conference shall be cancelled. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson. (Jacobwitz, Beth) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
NOTICE. The time for the October 30, 2006 telephone status conference is hereby rescheduled from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff will initiate the call to chambers. Approved by Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 10/24/06. (Cass, Luke) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
122 Minute Entry for proceedings held before A. Kathleen Tomlinson : Status Conference held on 10/30/2006. The parties report that progress has been made toward finalizing the settlement in this matter and that final versions of all documents have been circulated. A conference call is scheduled for November 6, 2006 at 12:00 p.m. to review the status of the final settlement documentation. Counsel for Plaintiff is to initiate the call. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson. (Jacobwitz, Beth) (Entered: 11/01/2006)
123 Minute Entry for proceedings held before A. Kathleen Tomlinson : Status Conference held on 11/6/2006. The parties report that the settlement in this matter has been finalized and that final versions of all documents have been circulated. A conference is scheduled for December 6, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. In the event a Stipulation of Dismissal is filed prior to that date, the conference shall be cancelled. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson. (Jacobwitz, Beth) (Entered: 11/07/2006)

17 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?952110532718816-L_3...

12/07/2006
12/13/2006 12/13/2006 12/20/2006

124 Minute Entry for proceedings held before A. Kathleen Tomlinson : Status Conference held on 12/6/2006. A conference to discuss the status of the settlement is scheduled for December 13, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. In the event a Stipulation of Discontinuance is filed prior to that time, the conference shall be cancelled. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson. (Jacobwitz, Beth) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
125 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consent Decree in EEOC v. Comprehensive Benefits Consultants, Inc. by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-D)(Roberts, Monique) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
127 Minute Entry for proceedings held before A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 12/13/06Telephone Conference held. The next telephone conf to be held on 12/14/06. The parties are directed to call chambers tomorrow to advise the Court of the status of the settlement documentation. (Montero, Edher) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
126 CONSENT DECREE re 125 Settlement Agreement filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Exhibit A sealed and in the vault). Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 12/20/06. cm(Mierzejewski, Elizabeth) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/12/2007 (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth). (Entered: 12/27/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/04/2007 15:23:40

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:04-cv-03076-LDW-AKT

Billable Pages:

13

Cost:

1.04

18 of 18

6/4/2007 2:21 PM


[CONTENT] The New York District Office | the U.S. District Court | the Eastern District | New York | Comprehensive Benefit Consultants ||| July 2004 | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act | 1964 | Defendant ||| February 2006 | April 2006 ||| December 2006 ||| three years | Defendant | four | 150,000 | Defendant | Title VII ||| Title VII | EEOC ||| 2009 [SUMMARY] The New York District Office brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against Comprehensive Benefit Consultants. The complaint, filed in July 2004, alleged sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; specifically that Defendant subjected the charging parties to a sexually hostile work environment, constructive discharge and retaliation because of their sex, female. Defendant moved for summary judgment in February 2006 but the motion was denied in April 2006.

The parties entered into a consent decree in December 2006.  The decree, valid for three years, required Defendant to pay the four charging parties a total of $150,000 (individual amounts not specified in the decree) and enjoined Defendant from discriminating in violation of Title VII.  Defendant was required to provide Title VII training to its employees, post a notice of non-discrimination at its facility, and report regularly to the EEOC about internal complaints of discrimination and its compliance with the decree. The docket sheet doesn't show any further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2009.

