Case: EEOC v. PIMALCO INC

2:03-cv-01651 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: Aug. 26, 2003

Closed Date: Feb. 17, 2004

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The EEOC's Phoenix district office sued Pimalco, Inc., an Arizona aluminum manufacturer, on August 26, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the district of Arizona. The docket is the only document available for this case, however its summary of the consent decree states the EEOC's cause of action. Pimalco allegedly violated that Americans with Disabilities Act when it discriminated against an employee because of a disability (diabetes) by terminating his employment. The parties settled their dispute through a consent judgment on February 17, 2004, which stipulated that Pimalco would pay $70,000 to the aggrieved employee, provide ADA training for its management, review it's EEO policy, and report its progress to the EEOC semi-annually.

Summary Authors

Aaron Weismann (6/11/2007)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:03-cv-01651

Docket

EEOC v. Pimalco Inc

Feb. 17, 2004

Feb. 17, 2004

Docket

Resources

Docket

Last updated March 18, 2024, 3:10 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT FILED (MRB) (Entered: 08/27/2003)

Aug. 26, 2003

Aug. 26, 2003

2

RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED summons/complaint upon dft Pimalco Inc, by service on Shannon McKnight, service clerk for Corporation Service Co on 8/27/03 in Phoenix, AZ (former emp) (Entered: 09/02/2003)

Aug. 29, 2003

Aug. 29, 2003

3

JOINT MOTION to extend deadline, until 9/25/03, to file response to pla's complaint by pla EEOC, dft Pimalco Inc [3-1] (former emp) (Entered: 09/16/2003)

Sept. 15, 2003

Sept. 15, 2003

4

MOTION for admission pro hac vice as to Margaret A Keane, atty for dft Pimalco Inc [4-1] (former emp) (Entered: 09/18/2003)

Sept. 17, 2003

Sept. 17, 2003

5

MOTION for admission pro hac vice as to Paul Amato, atty for dft Pimalco Inc [5-1] (former emp) (Entered: 09/18/2003)

Sept. 17, 2003

Sept. 17, 2003

Pro Hac Vice $25 Fee Paid as to Paul Amato (BAS) (Entered: 09/18/2003)

Sept. 18, 2003

Sept. 18, 2003

Pro Hac Vice $25 Fee Paid as to Margaret A Keane (BAS) (Entered: 09/18/2003)

Sept. 18, 2003

Sept. 18, 2003

7

ORDER by Judge Roslyn O. Silver granting motion for admission pro hac vice as to Paul Amato, atty for dft Pimalco Inc [5-1] (cc: all counsel) (former emp) (Entered: 09/22/2003)

Sept. 22, 2003

Sept. 22, 2003

8

ORDER by Judge Roslyn O. Silver granting motion for admission pro hac vice as to Margaret A Keane, atty for dft Pimalco Inc [4-1] (cc: all counsel) (former emp) (Entered: 09/22/2003)

Sept. 22, 2003

Sept. 22, 2003

9

ANSWER and defenses to pla's complaint [1-1] by dft Pimalco Inc (former emp) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

Sept. 25, 2003

Sept. 25, 2003

10

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by dft Pimalco Inc (SAT) (Entered: 09/26/2003)

Sept. 25, 2003

Sept. 25, 2003

11

ORDER by Judge Roslyn O. Silver ; prel scheduling conf set for 9:00 12/12/03 ; All counsel to this action must advise the Court 3 days prior to the Conference if they plan to participate by telephone. All parties are to conduct an initial case management meeting at least 21 days before the Conference in accordance with Rule 26(f) of the Fed.R.Civ.P. Parties shall develop and Proposed Case Management Plan. The Plan shall be filed with the Court not less than 10 days before the Scheduling Conference (cc: all counsel) (former emp) (Entered: 10/06/2003)

Oct. 6, 2003

Oct. 6, 2003

12

JOINT REQUET (MOTION) for referral to magistrate judge for a settlement confernence a by pla EEOC, dft Pimalco Inc [12-1] (former emp) (Entered: 11/10/2003)

Nov. 7, 2003

Nov. 7, 2003

13

MINUTE ORDER: The Court has received and reviewed the pending motion. IT IS ORDERED granting motion for referral to magistrate judge for a settlement conference by pla EEOC, dft Pimalco Inc [12-1]. Upon random draw, IT IS ORDERED reassigning this matter to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan for a settlement conference. Counsel are instructed to contact Judge Duncan's chambers to arrange the setting of the settlement conference. On Court's motion, IT IS ORDERED vacating the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set December 12, 2003, pending the completion of the settlement conference. Counsel are instructed to notify this Court within 7 days after the settlement conference if a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference is still needed. If needed, the Court will reset the Conference at the earliest convenient date on the Court's calendar. ; prel scheduling conf held (cc: all counsel, DKD, ROS) [13-2] (SJF) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

Nov. 20, 2003

Nov. 20, 2003

14

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER by Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan ; settlement conference set for 9:00 1/23/04 , before Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan ; all parties and their counsel responsible for trial shall physically appear before the settlement judge; the parties shall exchange written correspondence regarding settlement; pla's demand shall be delivered to defense counsel 30 days before the settlement conference; dfts' response shall be delivered to pla's counsel not less than 14 days before the Settlement Memoranda are due; each party shall provide the Court with that party's settlement memorandum at least 5 days before the conference (cc: all counsel/ROS) (former emp) (Entered: 11/26/2003)

Nov. 26, 2003

Nov. 26, 2003

15

MINUTE ENTRY before Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan . . ; settlement conference held ; case has settled; parties to file with the Court their proposed consent decree by 2/12/04 [cc: cnsl/ros]] [15-2] (former emp) (Entered: 01/23/2004)

Jan. 23, 2004

Jan. 23, 2004

16

ORDER by Judge Roslyn O. Silver: this action will be dismissed by the Clerk's Office without further notice on 2/25/04 unless a request for reinstatement on the Court's calendar is filed; ; possbl dsm ddl set for 2/25/04 ; all pending motions are denied without prejudice with leave to reinstate should the parties fail to finalize the settlement agreement; vacating any hearings and or trial date (cc: all counsel) (former emp) (Entered: 01/27/2004)

Jan. 27, 2004

Jan. 27, 2004

17

NOTICE by pla EEOC of lodging consent decree signed by both parties (former emp) (Entered: 02/11/2004)

Feb. 10, 2004

Feb. 10, 2004

18

CONSENT DECREE by Judge Roslyn O. Silver: the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the parties; the Decree resolves all claims arising out of the issues between the commission and Pimalco, including without limitation back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys fees; the Decree resolves all claims by EEOC under the ADA for both monetary and non-monetary relief re Pimalco's termination of Roy Merritt; the duration of this decree shall be 2 years from teh date of its entry; judgment is entered in favor of the Commission and against Pimalco in the amount of $70,000; Pimalco will not condition the receipt of individual relief on an agreement to maintain as confidential the terms of this decree; Pimalco shall pay the settlement amount within within 14 days of the entry of the decree; the payment represents $42,000 as back pay and the remainder as payment of compensatory damages; within 10 business days of issuance of these checks, Pimalco will submit a copy of each check to the Regional Attorney, EEOC; within 30 days of the entry of this decree, Pimalco shall submit a written document for review to the Regional Attorney of the Phoenix District Office of the EEOC which reflects Pimalco's plan for reaffirming its current Mobile Equipment Operator Medical Standard; within 90 days following entry of the Decree, Pimalco will provide a training session to all management employees, regarding the Americans With Disabilities Act and diabetes; at least once every 12 months during the length of the Decree, Pimalco shall provide management level employees with all policies or procedures developed or modified pursuant to the decree; Pimalco will provide trainers knowledgeable about all the subjects of the training set in paragraph 14; Pimalco will submit the names of the proposed trainers with the dates of the proposed seminar and the contents of the training to the Regional Attorney, EEOC within 60 days of the entry of this decree; training shall be conducted within 4 months of the entry of this decree; during the second year, the training shall be conducted at least 10 months, but not more than 13 months after the completion of the preceding year's session; this decree will expire by its own terms at the end of 2 years from the date of entry, without further action by the parties; Pimalco will report in writing on a semi-annual basis within 6 months from the entry of this decree regarding its compliance with the specific terms of the decree; the Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the duration of the decree to dismiss case * (cc: all counsel) (former emp) Modified on 02/17/2004 (Entered: 02/17/2004)

Feb. 17, 2004

Feb. 17, 2004

Case Details

State / Territory: Arizona

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 26, 2003

Closing Date: Feb. 17, 2004

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Pimalco, Inc., Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 70000

Order Duration: 2004 - 2006

Content of Injunction:

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Provide antidiscrimination training

Reporting

Issues

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Treatment

Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits