University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. BARBER AUTO SALES et al EE-CA-0274
Docket / Court 2:03-cv-00657-GEB-GGH ( E.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In April 2003, the San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Barber Auto Sales, Inc. (d/b/a Barber Dealer Group and Barber Dodge aka Vallejo Dodge) and related businesses in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. We do not have a copy of the ... read more >
In April 2003, the San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Barber Auto Sales, Inc. (d/b/a Barber Dealer Group and Barber Dodge aka Vallejo Dodge) and related businesses in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. We do not have a copy of the complaint; thus, the exact allegations involved are unknown. However, it appears from the consent decree that the complaint alleged discrimination on the basis of national origin, color, and religion. Specifically, the defendant subjected the five charging parties, Afghanistan employees who practiced Islam, to a hostile work environment because of their national origin, color, and religion. In addition, the defendant retaliated against the charging parties by terminating them after they complained of the discrimination. In June 2003, the charging parties intervened in the suit. After some scheduling orders, the parties settled in April 2004 through a consent decree.

The three-year decree, containing non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses, required the defendant to: obtain an independent consultant to enforce its anti-discrimination policies and the provisions of the decree, revise and distribute its anti-discrimination policies, develop a complaint procedure, provide Title VII training, and report to the EEOC at specified intervals. In addition, the defendant agreed to: expunge the charging parties' personnel files from all references to the charges of discrimination and pay $550,000.

In March of 2004 a stipulation was agreed to and entered by and between the intervenors and the defendant, dismissing the Amended Complaint in Intervention with prejudice. This stipulation additionally stated that each party would bear its own attorney fees and costs.

Keri Livingston - 06/28/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Expungement of Employment Record
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
Race discrimination
Religion discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
National Origin/Ethnicity
Arab/Afgani/Middle Eastern
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Barber Auto Sales Incorporated
Barber Auto Sales, Inc.
Dave Waldman
Mike Creeden
Ron Barber
White Auto Sales, Inc.
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
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)
2:03-cv-00657-GEB-GGH (E.D. Cal.) 04/01/2004
EE-CA-0274-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Consent Decree 06/04/2003
EE-CA-0274-0001 PDF | Detail
Stipulation and Order for Dismissal 03/03/2004 (E.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0274-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: District Court
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 -