University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. HITCHIN LUCERNE INC (d/b/a LUCERNE VALLEY MARKET IGA/ACE HARDWARE) EE-CA-0105
Docket / Court 5:00-cv-00224-RT-CW ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In April 2000, the EEOC brought this suit against Hitchen Lucerne, Inc., d/b/a Lucerne Valley Market/Ace Hardware, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The EEOC alleged that the defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in ... read more >
In April 2000, the EEOC brought this suit against Hitchen Lucerne, Inc., d/b/a Lucerne Valley Market/Ace Hardware, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The EEOC alleged that the defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") by terminating the charging party, a sixty-two year old female employee because of her sex and age and failing to rehire her in retaliation for her complaints of the discrimination.

In June 2001, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. In May 2003, the motion was granted in part and denied in part, with the court rejecting the retaliation claims. The parties took part in a settlement conference in July 2003. After some discovery and scheduling orders, the parties settled in February 2004 through a consent decree.

The one-year decree, containing non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses, required the defendant to: provide Title VII and ADEA training for its managers, expunge the charging party's personnel file from all references to the charges of discrimination, revise its staff handbook to include age as a protected EEO category, post a notice of employee rights, report to the EEOC every six months, and pay $9,500 to the charging party.

Jason Chester - 07/05/2007


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
Expungement of Employment Record
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Discrimination-basis
Age discrimination
Sex discrimination
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. § 2000e
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Defendant(s) Hitchen Lucerne, 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 - 2005
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)
5:00-cv-00224-RT-CW (C.D. Cal.) 02/26/2004
EE-CA-0105-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 05/16/2003 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0105-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Decree 02/26/2004
EE-CA-0105-0002 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 -