EEOC's Los Angeles, CA office filed this sexual discrimination/harassment and retaliation lawsuit against two corporate defendants and two individual defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on 09/26/2001. The corporate defendants Rookies II, LLC and Rookies, Inc. ...
read more >
EEOC's Los Angeles, CA office filed this sexual discrimination/harassment and retaliation lawsuit against two corporate defendants and two individual defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on 09/26/2001. The corporate defendants Rookies II, LLC and Rookies, Inc. operated a saloon and a sports bar in Nevada respectively. The two individual defendants were owners and major shareholders in the two businesses.
EEOC alleged on behalf of seven identified class members, all female, that they were subject to a hostile work environment where they suffered sexually charged conduct, derogatory statements and obscene and vulgar language from the individual defendants and other high-level supervisors. The employers also allegedly retaliated against the employees for complaints in the forms of demotion, loss of wages, further harassment, discipline and constructive discharge.
The parties initially went through ENE and settlement conference but failed to reach an agreement. After the district court denied EEOC's partial summary judgment on 02/23/2004, the parties reached a settlement agreement on 03/24/2004. Without access to any document related to the summary judgment decision, there is no way to evaluate the importance of this event to the parties' negotiations.
The suit was ultimately resolved by a 3-year consent decree entered by the court on 06/14/2004. The decree, 19 pages long, listed the defendants' monetary and non-monetary obligations in great details. The defendants were required to pay $200,000 in monetary relief (mostly non-pecuniary damage) and $100,000 liquidated damage to all class members in the event of breach. The two individual defendants were jointly and severally liable for the payment. They agreed to provide collateral for the payment and were prohibited from selling, closing, or transferring the interest of the businesses outside the normal course of business in order to escape the monetary obligations. The defendants also needed to expunge the lawsuit from the employees' personnel files.
Additionally, the decree prohibited the corporate defendants from discriminating and retaliating. To ensure compliance, they were required to retain and pay for an independent consultant chosen by the EEOC to revise policies, conduct training, investigate complaints and recommend resolutions for the complaints. Other obligations of the defendants included: posting and distributing the revised policies, trainings, record-keeping, and reporting (initial and periodic) to the EEOC about compliance with the above-mentioned non-monetary obligations.Justin Kanter - 06/16/2007