University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. Fresh Express Farms Inc. EE-CA-0092
Docket / Court C-02-04614- JF (HRL) ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In September 2002, the EEOC district office of San Francisco, California brought this suit against Fresh Express, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that a defendant maintained a sexually hostile work environment when it failed to ... read more >
In September 2002, the EEOC district office of San Francisco, California brought this suit against Fresh Express, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that a defendant maintained a sexually hostile work environment when it failed to discipline a supervisor who refused to stop making unwanted sexual advances. The complaint also alleged that the defendant retaliated against the aggrieved employee when she complained about the harassment.

The charging party intervened as a plaintiff in the suit. In May of 2004, the case was resolved; the intervenor-plaintiff reached a separate and confidential settlement agreement, while the EEOC settled its suit with a consent decree. The consent decree stated that the defendant must (1) comply with the nondiscrimination objectives of Title VII; (2) not retaliate against employees who bring discrimination to its attention; (3) establish a "no tolerance" policy concerning sex discrimination; (4) establish compliant procedures; (5) give one hour of anti-sex discrimination training to all of its employees annually; (6) train all its supervisors in the art of investigating sex discrimination; (7) and retain all records of training for EEOC inspection.

Jason Chester - 05/30/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
State Anti-Discrimination Law
Defendant(s) Fresh Express, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
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 2004 - 2007
Case Closing Year 2004
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)
5:02-cv-04614-JF (N.D. Cal.) 05/12/2004
EE-CA-0092-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 09/24/2002
EE-CA-0092-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Complaint In Intervention 04/23/2003
EE-CA-0092-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Decree 05/12/2004
EE-CA-0092-0003 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges None on record
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -