University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. MER CORPORATION d/b/a "Dancers Show Club" EE-IN-0065
Docket / Court 1:06-cv-1436-LJM-WTL ( S.D. Ind. )
State/Territory Indiana
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
On September 29, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit in the Indianapolis U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Mer Corporation (doing business as Dancers Show Club) on behalf of a female employee. According to the EEOC, Mer had violated ... read more >
On September 29, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit in the Indianapolis U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Mer Corporation (doing business as Dancers Show Club) on behalf of a female employee. According to the EEOC, Mer had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) by forcing the employee to take early maternity leave, which resulted in loss of her position as a bartender. The EEOC sought its costs, monetary and injunctive relief for the employee, including policy reform, back pay, compensation for emotional harm, and punitive damages.

The employee intervened in the case with the Court's approval (Judge Larry J. McKinney) on October 27, 2006. The employee proceeded on the same grounds as the EEOC and sought substantially the same relief, though the employee's complaint contained greater factual detail.

The parties reached a settlement, which the Court entered as a consent decree on November 20, 2007. The decree provided monetary relief ($6,000 in back pay and $30,500 in compensatory damages) for the employee and contained a variety of injunctive provisions. Under the decree Mer was required not to discriminate or retaliate, to post an EEOC notice, to expunge all references to the discrimination charge from the employee's file and make no mention of it in references, to notify all current and future employees with hiring/firing authority that pregnancy is not a factor to be considered in employment decisions, to provide all managers and supervisors with sex discrimination training, and to report annually to the EEOC the reasons for discharge when a pregnant employee has been fired. The parties bore their own costs. No further court activity appears on the docket, and the case is now closed.

Kenneth Gray - 07/29/2013


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
Neutral/Positive Reference
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination-basis
Pregnancy discrimination
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) Mer Corporation d/b/a Dancers Show Club
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf a female employee
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 - 2012
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)
5:99-cv-01765-TS-RSP (S.D. Ind.) 11/20/2007
EE-IN-0065-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 09/29/2006
EE-IN-0065-0001.pdf | Detail
[Plaintiff-Intervenor's] Complaint 10/26/2006
EE-IN-0065-0002.pdf | Detail
Stipulated Protective Order 06/28/2007 (S.D. Ind.)
EE-IN-0065-0003.pdf | Detail
Consent Decree 11/20/2007
EE-IN-0065-0004.pdf | Detail
Judges Lawrence, William T. (S.D. Ind.) [Magistrate]
EE-IN-0065-0003 | EE-IN-0065-9000
McKinney, Larry J. (S.D. Ind.)
EE-IN-0065-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bird, Kenneth L (Indiana)
EE-IN-0065-0001 | EE-IN-0065-9000
Eisele, Michelle (Indiana)
EE-IN-0065-0001 | EE-IN-0065-9000
Farnsworth, Jo Ann (Indiana)
EE-IN-0065-0003 | EE-IN-0065-0004 | EE-IN-0065-9000
Welsh, Gary R (Indiana)
EE-IN-0065-0002 | EE-IN-0065-0003 | EE-IN-0065-0004 | EE-IN-0065-9000
Young, Laurie A (Indiana)
EE-IN-0065-0001 | EE-IN-0065-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Rocap, Richard A (Indiana)
EE-IN-0065-0003 | EE-IN-0065-0004 | EE-IN-0065-9000
Timberman, Scott Lee (Indiana)
EE-IN-0065-0003 | EE-IN-0065-0004 | EE-IN-0065-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -