University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. ROBERT L REEVES & ASSOCIATES EE-CA-0125
Docket / Court 2:00-cv-10515-DT-RZ ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In September 2000, the Los Angeles District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit against the law firm Robert L Reeves & Associates in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging discrimination on the basis of gender, female, and pregnancy-based discrimination in ... read more >
In September 2000, the Los Angeles District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit against the law firm Robert L Reeves & Associates in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging discrimination on the basis of gender, female, and pregnancy-based discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. We do not have a copy of the complaint; therefore, the exact allegations involved are unknown. However it appears from the various motions that the defendant was accused of maintaining a sexually hostile environment and terminating the employment of some complainants based upon their pregnancies.

Following extensive discovery and a series of successful motions for partial summary judgment for the defendant, the District Court granted summary judgment for the defendant as to the remaining claimants and entered final judgment for the defendants in March 2002. The EEOC appealed this decision to the U.S. Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit in May 2002, which reversed and remanded the decision back to the District Court. Following this remand and extensive discovery, the case was heard before a jury in October 2005. The jury found in favor of the defendants, and judgment was entered in November 2005. Costs were taxed against the EEOC in the amount of $7,234.49, and attorney expenses were granted in the amount of $1,022,653.69 ($995,780.72 in attorneys' fees and $26,872.97 in expenses). The EEOC appealed the judgment to the U.S. Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit again in January 2006, which affirmed the District Court's judgment for the defendant in February 2008.

Daisy Manning - 04/23/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination-basis
Pregnancy discrimination
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Robert L Reeves & Associates
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 Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2002
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)
2:00-cv-10515-DT-RZ (C.D. Cal.) 10/18/2006
EE-CA-0125-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Order Denying Ex-Parte Application for Protective Order 05/25/2001 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0125-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Review of Order of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [in part] 07/27/2001 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0125-0003 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order on Motion to Compel [in part] 09/06/2001 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0125-0004 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Court Order to Compel [in part] 09/19/2001 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0125-0005 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [in part] 09/24/2001 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0125-0006 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Revised Partial Summary Judgment Order 10/18/2001 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0125-0007 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 11/30/2001 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0125-0008 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [in part] 01/22/2002 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0125-0009 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order on Summary Judgment 02/19/2002 (2003 WL 1634013 / 2002 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 9019) (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0125-0014 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of EEOC Suit Against Reeves Law Firm in California [EEOC Press Release] 06/25/2003
EE-CA-0125-0001 PDF | Detail
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendant's Affirmative Defenses, Nos. 14 & 15 12/08/2003 (2003 WL 22999369 / 2003 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 24701) (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0125-0015 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Dismissal [in part] 03/22/2004 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0125-0011 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment on Jury Verdict 11/17/2005 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0125-0012 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses 01/13/2006 (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0125-0013 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 -