University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INC EE-NV-0004
Docket / Court 2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL ( D. Nev. )
State/Territory Nevada
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The Los Angeles district office of the EEOC brought this suit against Caesar's Entertainment, Inc., a major casino corporation, and related corporate entities in March 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The complaint alleged that kitchen employees employed by Caesar's were ... read more >
The Los Angeles district office of the EEOC brought this suit against Caesar's Entertainment, Inc., a major casino corporation, and related corporate entities in March 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The complaint alleged that kitchen employees employed by Caesar's were subjected to ongoing and extreme sexual harassment, and were retaliated against for complaints about the hostile work environment produced by this harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some of the complainants intervened in June 2005, adding various State law claims. The parties settled the case in August 2007 by entry of a consent decree. There are several published opinions: U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428 (D.Nev. 2006) (denying Defendants' Renewed Motion for Protective Order); U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, 2006 WL 1168840 (D.Nev. 2006) (granting Defendant Pinelo's Motion for Summary Judgment); and U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 2007 WL 1231776 (D.Nev. 2007) (granting Defendant Hernandez's Motion for Summary Judgment).

The consent decree included non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses, required the expungement of complainants' employment records, and required Caesar's to provide neutral references for complainants. Caesar's was required to work with an Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant to develop its non-discrimination and non-retaliation policy, to create a training program that would educate employees about discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and to help develop and monitor the complaint and investigation process. The decree, in effect for three years, also required regular reporting to the EEOC on complaints and on the non-discrimination and non-retaliation policy, which was to be distributed to employees and posted. In case of non-compliance, Caesar's would have thirty days to remedy the problem, after which the EEOC would be entitled to ask the court to enforce the decree. Additionally, $850,000.00 is to be paid by Caesar's to individual complainants and to similarly situated employees identified by the EEOC.

Shankar Viswanathan - 05/23/2008


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
Expungement of Employment Record
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Neutral/Positive Reference
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Demotion
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Discipline
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Pay / Benefits
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action State Anti-Discrimination Law
State law
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Caesar's Palace Corporation
Caesar's World, Inc.
Caesars Entertainment, Inc.
Daniel Pinelo
Desert Palace, Inc.
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
Harrah's Operating Company, Inc.
Harrah's Operating Company, Inc.
Juan Gonzalez
Park Place Entertainment Corporation
Park Place Entertainment Corporation
Ricardo Hernandez
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 2007 - 2010
Case Closing Year 2007
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)
2:05-cv-00427-LRH-PAL (D. Nev.) 09/28/2007
EE-NV-0004-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 03/31/2005
EE-NV-0004-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
EEOC Press Release 04/04/2005
EE-NV-0004-0008.pdf | Detail
First Amended Complaint 06/08/2005
EE-NV-0004-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Complaint in Intervention 06/16/2005
EE-NV-0004-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Regarding Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Daniel Pinelo] 04/25/2006 (2006 WL 1168840) (D. Nev.)
EE-NV-0004-0012.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Order [Regarding Defendant's Emergency Motion for Protective Order] 06/14/2006 (D. Nev.)
EE-NV-0004-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Regarding Renewed Motion for Protective Order] 08/22/2006 (237 F.R.D. 428) (D. Nev.)
EE-NV-0004-0011.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Order [Regarding Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Juan Gonzalez] 09/27/2006 (D. Nev.)
EE-NV-0004-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
EEOC's Second Amended Complaint 09/29/2006
EE-NV-0004-0006.pdf | Detail
Order [Regarding Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Ricardo Hernandez] 04/27/2007 (2007 WL 1231776) (D. Nev.)
EE-NV-0004-0013.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Consent Decree; Order 08/22/2007
EE-NV-0004-0010.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
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 -