University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. SIERRA ALUMINUM EE-CA-0203
Docket / Court 2:06-cv-04158-PSG-CT ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
On June 29, 2006, the Los Angeles office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit under Title VII against Sierra Aluminum in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The EEOC alleged that the defendants had violated the complainant's rights by ... read more >
On June 29, 2006, the Los Angeles office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit under Title VII against Sierra Aluminum in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The EEOC alleged that the defendants had violated the complainant's rights by subjecting her to harassment. We have no further information on the specific allegations made, since we have only the docket and the consent decree in this case.

On August 2, 2007, the parties settled the case. Fifteen days later, the court approved their consent decree and closed the case. Under the terms of the consent decree, the defendants agreed to pay $200,000 to resolve the complaint. The defendants were prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against any employees violation of Title VII, and they were required to develop an anti-discrimination policy to post at the place of business and distribute to all employees. The defendants were required to include compliance with EEO policies as a measure of performance in each employee's annual performance review. The defendants agreed to retain an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission consultant to ensure that they comply with the terms of the decree. Defendants were required to provide a mandatory intensive three-hour EEO training program for all management and human resources personnel each year. All other employees were to be required to attend a similar program for one hour each year. The defendants agreed to form a complaint process that provides employees with accessible and confidential avenues of complaint. This process was to allow the employees to report their complaints to someone outside their chain of management, provide confidentiality for all complaints, involve timely investigation of all complaints, and allow for remedial action to be taken.

The EEOC was allowed to send a representative to observe the EEO training that would be provided to all of the defendant's employees. Within 90 days, the defendants were to provide a copy of all policies and procedures formulated as a result of the consent decree, as well as certification of the mandatory training that they were to require of all employees. In addition, the defendants were to also provide semiannual reports of all complaints and the results of the ensuing investigations. The defendants were required to maintain a record-keeping procedure that provided for centralized tracking of all complaints and the monitoring of such complaints to prevent discrimination. This included all documents generated as a result of a complaint of harassment.

Kristen Sagar - 04/28/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Sierra Aluminum Company
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 2007 - 2010
Case Closing Year 2007
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)
2:06-cv-04158-PSG-CT (C.D. Cal.) 08/17/2007
EE-CA-0203-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
[Proposed] Consent Decree; Order 08/17/2007
EE-CA-0203-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges None on record
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Park, Anna Y. (California)
EE-CA-0203-9000
Viramontes, Victor (California)
EE-CA-0203-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Griffin, Gerald A (California)
EE-CA-0203-9000
Scalabrini, Gary Edward (California)
EE-CA-0203-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -