University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. ROTARY CORPORATION EE-NY-0142
Docket / Court 1:00-cv-01478-DNH-RFT ( N.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The New York office of the EEOC brought this suit against Rotary Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in September 2000. While we do not have a copy of the complaint, it alleged the defendant engaged in discrimination based on sex and national origin in ... read more >
The New York office of the EEOC brought this suit against Rotary Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in September 2000. While we do not have a copy of the complaint, it alleged the defendant engaged in discrimination based on sex and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More specifically, the complaint alleged the Rotary Corporation discriminated against female employees, creating a hostile work environment and constructively discharging the claimant. Three intervenor plaintiffs subsequently entered the suit over the defendants' objections, adding two managers of the Rotary Corporation as defendants to the suit. EEOC v. Rotary Corporation, 164 F.Supp.2d 306 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2001). While the defendants filed motions to dismiss that were denied and motions for summary judgment which were granted in part and denied in part, the parties settled the case August 2004. More specifically, the EEOC and the intervenor plaintiffs entered into separate consent decrees with the defendants.

The consent decree between the EEOC and Rotary Corporation included non-retaliation and non-discrimination clauses, required the defendant to maintain an anti-discrimination policy, and required the posting and distribution of the policy. The decree also required Rotary to train employees and managers on its anti-discrimination policy, with all employees receiving training for one hour annually and management personnel receiving an additional hour. The Human Resources department was also required to investigate complaints about discrimination and recommend and execute disciplinary action if discrimination was found to have occurred. The decree additionally required the defendant to submit a list of complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation to the EEOC on an annual basis. The injunctive parts of the decree had a three year term. If the EEOC found non-compliance, the decree required the EEOC to give notice to the Rotary Corporation and a chance to remedy prior to application to the Court for enforcement. In addition, as recorded in the consent decree between the EEOC and the defendants and the consent decree between the intervenor plaintiffs and the defendants, the defendants were required to pay $185,000 to be split between three claimants as compensation for emotional distress.

Kevin Wilemon - 06/04/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
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
National origin discrimination
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
National Origin/Ethnicity
Indian
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
State Anti-Discrimination Law
Defendant(s) Alan Makarwich
Keith Barry
Rotary Corporation
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 - 2007
Case Closing Year 2004
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing EE-NY-0231 : Schnoop v. Rotary Corporation, et al (N.D.N.Y.)
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)
1:00-cv-01478-DNH-RFT (N.D.N.Y.) 08/25/2004
EE-NY-0142-9000 PDF | Detail
General Documents
Memorandum-Decision and Order 08/10/2001 (164 F.Supp.2d 306) (N.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0142-0004 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Order 12/29/2003 (297 F.Supp.2d 643) (N.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0142-0005 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Consent Decree [As to EEOC and Rotary Corporation] 08/25/2004
EE-NY-0142-0001 PDF | Detail
Consent Decree [As to Intervenor-Plaintiffs] 08/25/2004
EE-NY-0142-0002 PDF | Detail
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 -