Case: EEOC v. QUICK QUALITY RESTAURANT INC

7:04-cv-02472 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: April 2, 2004

Closed Date: Oct. 11, 2005

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The EEOC's New York City office filed this national origin discrimination lawsuit against the defendants Quick Quality Restaurant, Inc. and Candu Management, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains) on 03/29/2004. The defendants owned five Burger King restaurants in the state of New York. EEOC alleged on behalf of four former employees of the defendants' Fishkill, New York restaurant that the defendants terminated them on the basis of their…

A jury trial was held before Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis from 09/19/2005 to 09/27/2005. The jury reached a verdict for the defendants. EEOC filed motions for a new trial motion and to amend/alter judgment, both of which were subsequently denied. Thereafter EEOC filed an appeal to the Second Circuit but the appeal was dismissed. EEOC v. Quick Quality Restaurant, Inc., 2006 WL 375173 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

show full summary

Summary Authors

Justin Kanter (6/13/2007)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4926466/parties/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-quick-quality-restaurant-inc/

Judge(s)

Yanthis, George A. (New York)

Judge(s)

Yanthis, George A. (New York)

Attorney Contact Information via CourtListener

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

	Document
7:04-cv-02472	Docket EEOC v. Quick Quality Restaurant Inc, et al	Feb. 17, 2006	Feb. 17, 2006 Docket
2 7:04-cv-02472	Complaint EEOC v. Quick Quality Restaurant Inc, et al	April 2, 2004	April 2, 2004 Complaint
42 7:04-cv-02472	Memorandum Decision and Order [re: Resolution of Discovery Disputes] EEOC v. Quick Quality Restaurant Inc, et al	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 Order/Opinion
73 7:04-cv-02472	Decision and Order Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Quick Quality Restaurants, Inc.	Feb. 16, 2006	Feb. 16, 2006 Order/Opinion 2006 WL 2006

show / hide documents

Resources

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Under the Radar: Visibility and the Effects of Discrimination Lawsuits in Small and Large Firms Carly Knight, Frank Dobbin, Alexandra Kalev	Research on how discrimination lawsuits affect corporate diversity has yielded mixed results. Qualitative studies highlight the limited efficacy of lawsuits in the typical workplace, finding that lit…	April 1, 2022	April 1, 2022 https://cris.tau.ac.il/...

show / hide resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4926466/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-quick-quality-restaurant-inc/

Last updated April 11, 2024, 3:02 a.m.

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
	Summons Issued	March 29, 2004	March 29, 2004 PACER
	Case Designation	March 29, 2004	March 29, 2004 PACER
	Case Designated ECF	March 29, 2004	March 29, 2004 PACER
1	Complaint	March 29, 2004	March 29, 2004 PACER
2	Complaint	April 2, 2004	April 2, 2004 PACER
	Note Rejection of Attempted Paper Filing in ECF Case	June 14, 2004	June 14, 2004 PACER
3	Motion to Intervene	June 18, 2004	June 18, 2004 PACER
4	Answer to Complaint	June 21, 2004	June 21, 2004 PACER
5	Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement	June 22, 2004	June 22, 2004 PACER
	Case Redesignation	July 23, 2004	July 23, 2004 PACER
7	Notice of Case Assignment/Reassignment	July 23, 2004	July 23, 2004 PACER
6	Scheduling Order	July 26, 2004	July 26, 2004 PACER
	Mail Notice to Attorney(s)	Aug. 2, 2004	Aug. 2, 2004 PACER
8	Motion to Intervene	Sept. 24, 2004	Sept. 24, 2004 PACER
	Motion Hearing	Oct. 1, 2004	Oct. 1, 2004 PACER
9	Scheduling Order	Oct. 26, 2004	Oct. 26, 2004 PACER
10	Motion for Leave to Appear	Nov. 17, 2004	Nov. 17, 2004 PACER
11	Letter	April 20, 2005	April 20, 2005 PACER
12	Letter	April 21, 2005	April 21, 2005 PACER
13	Letter	May 2, 2005	May 2, 2005 PACER
14	Letter	June 27, 2005	June 27, 2005 PACER
	Set Deadlines/Hearings	July 11, 2005	July 11, 2005 PACER
15	Letter	July 11, 2005	July 11, 2005 PACER
16	Letter	July 11, 2005	July 11, 2005 PACER
17	Letter	July 11, 2005	July 11, 2005 PACER
	Pretrial Conference - Interim	July 15, 2005	July 15, 2005 PACER
18	Letter	July 15, 2005	July 15, 2005 PACER
19	Consent to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge	July 15, 2005	July 15, 2005 PACER
20	Order	July 19, 2005	July 19, 2005 PACER
21	Letter	July 19, 2005	July 19, 2005 PACER
22	Proposed Jury Instructions	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
23	Proposed Voir Dire Questions	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
24	Motion in Limine	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
25	Motion in Limine	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
26	Witness List	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
27	Motion in Limine	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
28	Motion in Limine	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
29	Motion in Limine	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
30	Motion in Limine	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
31	Motion in Limine	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
32	Motion in Limine	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
33	Trial Memorandum	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
34	Proposed Jury Instructions	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
35	Proposed Voir Dire Questions	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
36	Witness List	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
39	Letter	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
40	Letter	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
41	Letter	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
42	Order	Sept. 6, 2005	Sept. 6, 2005 PACER
37	Motion in Limine	Sept. 7, 2005	Sept. 7, 2005 PACER
38	Motion in Limine	Sept. 7, 2005	Sept. 7, 2005 PACER
43	Response in Opposition to Motion	Sept. 12, 2005	Sept. 12, 2005 PACER
44	Response in Opposition to Motion	Sept. 12, 2005	Sept. 12, 2005 PACER
45	Response in Opposition to Motion	Sept. 12, 2005	Sept. 12, 2005 PACER
46	Response in Opposition to Motion	Sept. 12, 2005	Sept. 12, 2005 PACER
47	Response in Opposition to Motion	Sept. 12, 2005	Sept. 12, 2005 PACER
48	Response in Opposition to Motion	Sept. 12, 2005	Sept. 12, 2005 PACER
49	Response in Opposition to Motion	Sept. 12, 2005	Sept. 12, 2005 PACER
50	Motion in Limine	Sept. 13, 2005	Sept. 13, 2005 PACER
51	Motion in Limine	Sept. 18, 2005	Sept. 18, 2005 PACER
	Jury Selection	Sept. 19, 2005	Sept. 19, 2005 PACER
	Jury Trial - Begun	Sept. 19, 2005	Sept. 19, 2005 PACER
	Motion Hearing	Sept. 19, 2005	Sept. 19, 2005 PACER
	Jury Trial - Held	Sept. 20, 2005	Sept. 20, 2005 PACER
	Jury Trial - Held	Sept. 21, 2005	Sept. 21, 2005 PACER
	Jury Trial - Held	Sept. 22, 2005	Sept. 22, 2005 PACER
	Jury Trial - Held	Sept. 23, 2005	Sept. 23, 2005 PACER
	Jury Trial - Held	Sept. 26, 2005	Sept. 26, 2005 PACER
	Jury Trial - Completed	Sept. 27, 2005	Sept. 27, 2005 PACER
	Jury Verdict	Sept. 27, 2005	Sept. 27, 2005 PACER
52	Affidavit	Sept. 28, 2005	Sept. 28, 2005 PACER
53	Motion for New Trial	Oct. 11, 2005	Oct. 11, 2005 PACER
54	Judgment	Oct. 11, 2005	Oct. 11, 2005 PACER
55	Endorsed Letter	Oct. 21, 2005	Oct. 21, 2005 PACER
56	Response to Motion	Oct. 27, 2005	Oct. 27, 2005 PACER
57	Motion to Amend/Correct	Oct. 28, 2005	Oct. 28, 2005 PACER
58	Taxation of Costs	Nov. 3, 2005	Nov. 3, 2005 PACER
59	Affidavit in Support	Nov. 3, 2005	Nov. 3, 2005 PACER
60	Notice of Hearing	Nov. 3, 2005	Nov. 3, 2005 PACER
61	Affidavit	Nov. 3, 2005	Nov. 3, 2005 PACER
62	Certificate of Service Other	Nov. 3, 2005	Nov. 3, 2005 PACER
63	Taxation of Costs	Nov. 18, 2005	Nov. 18, 2005 PACER
64	Stipulation and Order	Nov. 22, 2005	Nov. 22, 2005 PACER
65	Order on Motion for New Trial	Nov. 23, 2005	Nov. 23, 2005 PACER
66	Motion for Attorney Fees	Dec. 5, 2005	Dec. 5, 2005 PACER
67	Motion for Attorney Fees	Dec. 5, 2005	Dec. 5, 2005 PACER
	Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings	Dec. 9, 2005	Dec. 9, 2005 PACER
68	Endorsed Letter	Dec. 9, 2005	Dec. 9, 2005 PACER
69	Response in Opposition to Motion	Jan. 3, 2006	Jan. 3, 2006 PACER
70	Response in Support of Motion	Jan. 5, 2006	Jan. 5, 2006 PACER
71	Notice (Other)	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 PACER
72	Motion to Dismiss	Feb. 14, 2006	Feb. 14, 2006 PACER
73	DECISION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs' action was not frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; nor did plaintiff continue to litigate after it clearly became so. Accordingly, the motion by defendants for attorneys fees as prevailing parties is denied. SO ORDERED: (Signed by Judge George A. Yanthis on 2/16/2006) "The Clerk's Office Has Mailed Copies".(mde, )	Feb. 17, 2006	Feb. 17, 2006 RECAP
73	DECISION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs' action was not frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; nor did plaintiff continue to litigate after it clearly became so. Accordingly, the motion by defendants for attorneys fees as prevailing parties is denied. SO ORDERED: (Signed by Judge George A. Yanthis on 2/16/2006) "The Clerk's Office Has Mailed Copies".(mde, )	Feb. 17, 2006	Feb. 17, 2006 RECAP