University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. TANIMURA & ANTLE INC EE-CA-0221
Docket / Court 5:99-cv-20088-JW ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, against Tanimura & Antle, Inc., one of the largest lettuce growers/distributers in the United States. The complaint, filed in February 1999, alleged sex ... read more >
The San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, against Tanimura & Antle, Inc., one of the largest lettuce growers/distributers in the United States. The complaint, filed in February 1999, alleged sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Defendant had subjected the female charging party to quid pro quo sexual harassment (i.e. required sexual favors as a condition for employment and job benefits) and subsequently discharged her in retaliation for complaining about the conduct. The complaint also alleged that Defendant had retaliated against the male charging party for his complaints concerning the sexual harassment of the female charging party.

A consent decree was submitted to the court four days after the complaint was filed, and the case was subsequently dismissed. This consent decree required the Defendant to pay the two charging parties and other similarly situated workers a total of $1,855,000 (individual amounts not disclosed), provide EEO training to its employees, and revise its existing sexual harassment policy. Additionally, the defendant was required to notify all current and former employees of this settlement through, among other things, newspaper and radio ads.

Keri Livingston - 07/05/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Provide antidiscrimination training
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Tamumura & Antle, 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 1999 - 2002
Case Closing Year 1999
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)
5:99-cv-20088-JW (N.D. Cal.) 06/12/2002
EE-CA-0221-9000.pdf | Detail
General Documents
Consent Decree 02/08/1999
EE-CA-0221-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: EEOC Regional Office
EEOC Press Release 02/23/1999
EE-CA-0221-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: EEOC.gov
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 -