University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. LUCE FORWARD HAMILTON & SCRIPPS EE-CA-0132
Docket / Court 2:00-cv-01322-FMC-CT ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The Los Angeles Office of the EEOC filed this action in the District Court for the Central District of California. The Defendant was Luce, Forward, Hamilton, and Scripps, a law firm. The controversy involved the failure of the Defendant to hire the complainant after the complainant refused to ... read more >
The Los Angeles Office of the EEOC filed this action in the District Court for the Central District of California. The Defendant was Luce, Forward, Hamilton, and Scripps, a law firm. The controversy involved the failure of the Defendant to hire the complainant after the complainant refused to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement, which the EEOC alleged was a violation of Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and the EPA. The lawsuit was filed in February 2000 and was initially resolved in December 2000 through summary judgment claims in favor of the defendant on the monetary damage claim, and in the EEOC's favor on the injunctive relief claim. The court held that the defendant would be enjoined from requiring applicants to arbitrate Title VII claims and from enforcing existing agreements to arbitrate those claims. EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP, 122 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (C.D. Cal. 2000). The defendant appealed this decision, and the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP, 303 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2002). An en banc Ninth Circuit rendered the same decision. EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP, 345 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2003). After remand, the EEOC settled their case. The defendant agreed that if it required the signing of a pre-dispute arbitration agreement, it must comply at a minimum with applicable state and federal law. Also, the defendant agreed to give notice to employees of their independent right to file cases in the public interest. The complainant, who had intervened in the case, was not a part of this settlement. His separate claim was later dismissed through the defendant's summary judgment motion.

Kevin Wilemon - 08/17/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Discrimination-area
Hiring
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Defendant(s) Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps
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 Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration 2000 - 2003
Case Closing Year 2000
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)
00–57222 (U.S. Court of Appeals) 05/24/2004
EE-CA-0132-9001.pdf | Detail
2:00-cv-01322-FMC-CT (C.D. Cal.) 08/12/2004
EE-CA-0132-9000.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; Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment 11/21/2000 (122 F.Supp.2d 1080) (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0132-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Judgment 12/11/2000 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0132-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Dissent [Court of Appeals] 09/03/2002 (303 F.3d 994)
EE-CA-0132-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Order [For Court of Appeals to Rehear] 02/07/2003 (319 F.3d 1091)
EE-CA-0132-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion and Dissents [Court of Appeals] 09/30/2003 (345 F.3d 742)
EE-CA-0132-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Settlement Agreement and Order Dismissing with Prejudice Claims by the US EEOC Only 06/18/2004
EE-CA-0132-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment 08/04/2004 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0132-0003.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 -