University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name United States of America v. Regents of the University of California EE-CA-0281
Docket / Court 2:03-cv-00415-EJG-GGH ( E.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
On March 3, 2003, the United States filed a lawsuit under Title VII against the Regents of the University of California in the Eastern District of California, Sacramento division. The United States Department of Justice alleged that the Regents retaliated against two female employees for reporting ... read more >
On March 3, 2003, the United States filed a lawsuit under Title VII against the Regents of the University of California in the Eastern District of California, Sacramento division. The United States Department of Justice alleged that the Regents retaliated against two female employees for reporting sexual harassment by a male co-worker. Specifically, the United States contended that the Regents released two female employees from their employment as Telecommunications Operators because they opposed practices they reasonably thought to be unlawful. The United States sought remedial and injunctive relief.

The EEOC investigated the complainant's charge and found reasonable cause to believe that female employees were retaliated against for engaging in protected activity in violation of Title VII. It then unsuccessfully attempted to achieve a voluntary resolution of these matters through conciliation and subsequently referred the charge to the Department of Justice.

On March 13, 2003, the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to enter into a consent decree ordered by the Eastern District of California (Judge Edward J. Garcia). The Regents agreed to offer compensatory damages and back pay to one of the female employees. She did not wish to return to her job. The other female employee was offered reinstatement and remedial seniority. In order to accept the relief, the two employees had to sign an executed release. The Regents agreed not to retaliate against or in any way adversely affect any person because that person opposed allegedly discriminatory practices by filing a complaint. The Regents further agreed to provide mandatory sexual harassment training to all management level and supervisory employees. Finally, the Regents agreed to retain all records relating to: complaints or charges of retaliation, employees that resign or are terminated from employment, reasons pertaining to employee resignations or terminations, and all complaints of retaliation for the duration of the decree. The U.S. will have the right to inspect all such documents.

Dana Schwarz - 11/06/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reinstatement
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Retroactive Senority
Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria
Defendant-type
College/University
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) Regents of the University of California
Plaintiff Description U.S. on behalf of female University of California employees
Indexed Lawyer Organizations U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2003 - 2006
Case Closing Year 2003
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:03-cv-00415 (E.D. Cal.) 03/25/2003
EE-CA-0281-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 03/03/2003
EE-CA-0281-0001 PDF | Detail
Consent Decree 03/13/2003
EE-CA-0281-0002 PDF | Detail
Judges Garcia, Edward J. (E.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0281-9000
Hollows, Gregory G. (E.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
EE-CA-0281-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Ashcroft, John (District of Columbia)
EE-CA-0281-0001
Boyd, Ralph F. Jr. (District of Columbia)
EE-CA-0281-0001 | EE-CA-0281-0002
Clark, Carolyn (District of Columbia)
EE-CA-0281-0001 | EE-CA-0281-0002
Fenton, William B. (District of Columbia)
EE-CA-0281-0001 | EE-CA-0281-0002 | EE-CA-0281-9000
Hirst, Michael Andrew (California)
EE-CA-0281-0001 | EE-CA-0281-0002 | EE-CA-0281-9000
Vincent, John K. (California)
EE-CA-0281-0001 | EE-CA-0281-0002
Defendant's Lawyers Canby, Rhonda Cate (California)
EE-CA-0281-0002 | EE-CA-0281-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -