University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. P&P MARKETING of OKLAHOMA CITY, INC. EE-OK-0036
Docket / Court 5:97-cv-01998-L ( W.D. Okla. )
State/Territory Oklahoma
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In December 1997, the Dallas District Office of the EEOC filed this suit against P&P Marketing of Oklahoma City, Inc. and Louis Plumbtree in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. We do not have a copy of the complaint; therefore, the exact allegations involved are unknown. ... read more >
In December 1997, the Dallas District Office of the EEOC filed this suit against P&P Marketing of Oklahoma City, Inc. and Louis Plumbtree in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. We do not have a copy of the complaint; therefore, the exact allegations involved are unknown. Two charging parties intervened in the suit in April 1998. After some discovery disputes, the defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment against the EEOC and the charging parties in July 1998. These motions were denied in September 1998. The next month, the court entered a default judgment against the defendants. The judgment required the defendants to pay a total of $51,104.25, to be divided between the two charging parties, along with $40,454.09 in attorneys' fees and costs.

Kevin Wilemon - 06/12/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Louis Plumbtree
P&P Marketing of Oklahoma City, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought Unknown
Class action status granted Unknown
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
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)
5:97-cv-01998-L (W.D. Okla.) 03/23/2000
EE-OK-0036-9000.pdf | Detail
General Documents
Order [denying motion to dismiss] 09/03/1998 (W.D. Okla.)
EE-OK-0036-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [denying defense motion for summary judgment] 09/09/1998 (W.D. Okla.)
EE-OK-0036-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Denying motion for default judgment] 10/06/1998 (W.D. Okla.)
EE-OK-0036-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment 06/09/1999 (W.D. Okla.)
EE-OK-0036-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Roberts, Bana (W.D. Okla.) [Magistrate]
EE-OK-0036-9000
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 -