University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. TAYLOR MADE DIGITAL SYTEMS, INC. EE-CA-0222
Docket / Court C-05-3952 MMC ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study
Case Summary
On September 29, 2005, the EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Title I and Title VII against Taylor Made Digital Systems. The EEOC sought injunctive relief and damages, alleging that the defendant discriminated against one of its employees on the ... read more >
On September 29, 2005, the EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Title I and Title VII against Taylor Made Digital Systems. The EEOC sought injunctive relief and damages, alleging that the defendant discriminated against one of its employees on the basis of her sex and race.

Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant discriminated against the employee by refusing to allow her to return to her previous position after her pregnancy, despite the fact that she could perform all her job functions. The complaint also alleges that the defendant replaced, demoted, and eventually terminated the employee on account of her being female/pregnant and African American. The suit was filed after the employee filed an initial charge with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by the defendant.

On December 21, 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Rioch Corporations, a successor to the original defendant, Taylor Made Digital Systems.

On October 18, 2006, the court (Judge Maxine M. Chesney) entered a consent decree. The consent decree required the defendant to pay $30,600 to the employee who brought the initial charge. The defendant also agreed to comply with Title VII, not to engage in retaliation against any employee because of the employee's opposition to discrimination, and to continue to post an anti-discrimination policy on its company intranet. Finally, the consent decree required all inquiries about the employee who filed the initial charge to be directed to a specific member of human resources, who was prohibited from referring to the present lawsuit. The consent decree terminated after one year.

Priyah Kaul - 11/22/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Constitutional Clause
Equal Protection
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Neutral/Positive Reference
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Accommodation / Leave
Demotion
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Discrimination-basis
Pregnancy discrimination
Race discrimination
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Race
Black
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Taylor Made Digital System, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
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 2006 - 2007
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)
3:05-cv-03952-MMC (N.D. Cal.) 10/18/2006
EE-CA-0222-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 09/29/2005
EE-CA-0222-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
First Amended Complaint 12/21/2005
EE-CA-0222-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Decree 10/18/2006
EE-CA-0222-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Chesney, Maxine M. (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0222-0003 | EE-CA-0222-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Hill Maxion, Sanya P. (California)
EE-CA-0222-0001 | EE-CA-0222-0002 | EE-CA-0222-0003 | EE-CA-0222-9000
Peck, Jonathan T. (California)
EE-CA-0222-0001 | EE-CA-0222-0002 | EE-CA-0222-0003 | EE-CA-0222-9000
Tamayo, William Robert (California)
EE-CA-0222-0001 | EE-CA-0222-0002 | EE-CA-0222-0003 | EE-CA-0222-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bowles, Richard T. (California)
EE-CA-0222-0003 | EE-CA-0222-9000
Sullivan, Mary P. (California)
EE-CA-0222-0003 | EE-CA-0222-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -