Case: EEOC v. SILK DYNASTY INC.

2:03-cv-01879 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: Sept. 26, 2003

Closed Date: Sept. 30, 2004

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The Phoenix office of the EEOC brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, against Silk Dynasty, Inc. The complaint was filed in September 2003 and in September 2004 a consent decree was entered. The only document that we have for this case is the docket, but from the docket we have the following information about the consent decree: Defendant was required to pay the charging party $25,000 and was enjoined from discriminating or retaliating in violation of Title VII.

Summary Authors

Elizabeth Glassman (7/9/2007)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/11833482/parties/eeoc-v-silk-dynasty-inc/


Judge(s)

Duncan, David K. (Arizona)

Judge(s)

Duncan, David K. (Arizona)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:03-cv-01879

Docket (PACER)

EEOC v. Silk Dynasty Inc.

Sept. 30, 2004

Sept. 30, 2004

Docket

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/11833482/eeoc-v-silk-dynasty-inc/

Last updated Feb. 6, 2024, 3:07 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT FILED (MRB) (Entered: 09/29/2003)

Sept. 26, 2003

Sept. 26, 2003

PACER
2

RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED summons/complaint upon dft Silk Dynasty Inc by service upon CT Corporation SYstem, Statutory Agent, in Phoenix, AZ (Molly Chapman accepting) on 9/26/03 (LAD) (Entered: 10/02/2003)

Sept. 30, 2003

Sept. 30, 2003

PACER
3

MOTION for admission pro hac vice as to Gary E Gamel, atty for dft Silk Dynasty Inc [3-1] (KMG) (Entered: 11/10/2003)

Nov. 6, 2003

Nov. 6, 2003

PACER
4

ANSWER to Complaint [1-1] by dft Silk Dynasty Inc; jury demand (KMG) (Entered: 11/10/2003)

Nov. 7, 2003

Nov. 7, 2003

PACER
5

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by dft Silk Dynasty Inc (KMG) (Entered: 11/10/2003)

Nov. 7, 2003

Nov. 7, 2003

PACER
6

PROOF OF SERVICE by dft Silk Dynasty Inc serving Answer to Complaint, Consent to Referral Arbitration and Corporate Disclosure Statement (KMG) (Entered: 11/10/2003)

Nov. 7, 2003

Nov. 7, 2003

PACER

Pro Hac Vice $25 Fee Paid as to Gary E Gamel (BAS)

Nov. 10, 2003

Nov. 10, 2003

PACER
7

ORDER by Judge Stephen M. McNamee granting motion for admission pro hac vice as to Gary E Gamel, atty for dft Silk Dynasty Inc [3-1] (cc: all counsel) (KMG) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 11/10/2003)

Nov. 10, 2003

Nov. 10, 2003

PACER
8

MINUTE ORDER: IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for a Rule 16 Preliminary Scheduling Conference for Tuesday, May 11, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. before Chief Judge Stephen M. McNamee in courtroom #605. Order to follow. (cc: all counsel/SMM) [8-2] (ALL) (Entered: 12/01/2003)

Dec. 1, 2003

Dec. 1, 2003

PACER
9

ORDER SETTING RULE 16 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE by Judge Stephen M. McNamee ; prel scheduling conf set for 4:00 5/11/04 FURTHER ORDERED that Counsel who will be responsible for trial of the lawsuit for each party shall appear and participate in the Preliminary Pretrial Conference. Counsel for all parties are directed to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the objectives of the conference. FURTHER ORDERED that all parties are directed to meet at least fourteen days before the Preliminary Pretrial Conference, in accordance with Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to discuss those matters listed. FURTHER ORDERED that to satisfy the requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) the parties shall file with the Clerk a Notice of Initial Disclosure; copies of the actual disclosures shall therefore not be filed. FURTHER ORDERED that at the Rule 26(f) case management meeting the parties shall develop a Proposed Case Management Plan which shall include brief statements or proposals concerning the issues stated within. FURTHER ORDERED that all deadlines to which the parties stipulate in the Proposed Case Management Plan shall fall on a Friday barring extenuating circumstances which make doing so impracticable. FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall jointly file their Proposed Case Management Plan with the Clerk not less than five (5) business days before the conference. FURTHER ORDERED that it is the responsibility of counsel for the pla to initiate the communications necessary to prepare the joint Proposed Case Management Plan. FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for all parties are expected to comply with Rule 26 of the Fed.R.Civ.P., and to minimize the expense of discovery. FURTHER ORDERED that counsel review the requirements of Rules 1.9 and 1.10, Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (1999) with their administrative/support personnel to ensure that all pleadings are in compliance with the rules. Failure to comply with every provision of this Order may lead to sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f). FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk send copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to all parties, if any, appearing in propria persona. (cc: all counsel) (KMG) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 02/23/2004)

Feb. 23, 2004

Feb. 23, 2004

PACER
10

STIPULATION (Proposed Request) for Settlement Conference by pla EEOC, dft Silk Dynasty Inc (KMG) (Entered: 04/28/2004)

April 26, 2004

April 26, 2004

PACER
11

Proposed Joint CASE MGT PLAN: by pla, dft (SAT) (Entered: 04/30/2004)

April 29, 2004

April 29, 2004

PACER
12

ORDER by Judge Stephen M. McNamee that this case is referred to Magistrate Judge David K Duncan for a settlement conference; FURTHER ORDERED that the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference currently set for 5/11/04 at 4:00 p.m. is VACATED ; prel scheduling conf vacated (cc: all counsel) (SAT) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 05/03/2004)

May 3, 2004

May 3, 2004

PACER
13

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER by Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan ; settlement conference set for 1:30 8/18/04, before Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan (cc: all counsel) (SAT) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 05/21/2004)

May 21, 2004

May 21, 2004

PACER
14

MINUTE ENTRY before Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan. ; Settlement conference held The parties have reached a settlement. A consent decree shall be filed with the Court within the next 45 days [14-2] (KMG) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 08/19/2004)

Aug. 18, 2004

Aug. 18, 2004

PACER
15

NOTICE by pla EEOC of Lodging of Consent Decree (KMG) (Entered: 09/28/2004)

Sept. 24, 2004

Sept. 24, 2004

PACER
16

CONSENT JUDGMENT by Judge Stephen M. McNamee this Decree resolves all claims of the Commission against dft Silk Dynasty, Inc, including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, injuncitve relief, attorney's fees and costs arising out of the issues in this lawsuit. Silk Dynasty, and its officers, agents, employees...are enjoined from: a) sexually harassing any employee; b) retaliating against any employee because he or she i) opposes or opposed discriminatory practices made unlawful by Title VII; ii) filed or filed a charge of discrimination or assists, assisted, participates, or participated in the filing of a charge of discrimination; or iii) assists, assisted, participates or participated in an investigation or proceeding brought under the Federal or State laws prohibiting discrmination or retaliation. Judgment is entered in favor of the Commission and against Silk Dynasty in the amount of $25,000.00. Silk Dynasty shall pay the amount of $25,000.00 to Cheryl Horne. The payments represent settlement of compensatory damages. to dismiss case (cc: all counsel) (KMG) (ADI-ICMS, ). (Entered: 09/30/2004)

Sept. 30, 2004

Sept. 30, 2004

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Arizona

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 26, 2003

Closing Date: Sept. 30, 2004

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Silk Dynasty Inc., Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 25000

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Retaliation Prohibition

Issues

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Treatment

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex or Gender:

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits