University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. ROWTOWN INC (d/b/a THE FISH HOPPER RESTAURANT) EE-CA-0192
Docket / Court 5:03-cv-01522-RMW ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The EEOC's San Francisco office filed this suit in April 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. The complaint alleged that defendant Rowtown, Inc., doing business as The Fish Hopper Restaurant, violated Title VII by creating a hostile work ... read more >
The EEOC's San Francisco office filed this suit in April 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. The complaint alleged that defendant Rowtown, Inc., doing business as The Fish Hopper Restaurant, violated Title VII by creating a hostile work environment and causing the constructive discharge of a female employee because of her gender. The complainant was allegedly subjected to inappropriate comments and touching. The complainant intervened in the suit.

The case was settled and the court entered a consent decree in November of 2005. The defendant agreed in the consent decree to pay the complainant $200,000, update its policies on sexual harassment, provide training for all of its employees and impose strict disciplinary guidelines for supervisors who engage in or permit harassment or retaliation.

Jason Chester - 08/09/2007


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
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
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
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
State Anti-Discrimination Law
Defendant(s) Rowtown, Inc.
Rowtown, 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 2005 - 2008
Case Closing Year 2005
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)
5:03-cv-01522-RMW (N.D. Cal.) 09/29/2006
EE-CA-0192-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 04/10/2003
EE-CA-0192-0001 PDF | Detail
Complaint in Intervention for Damages and Injunctive Relief 06/26/2003
EE-CA-0192-0002 PDF | Detail
Amended Complaint in Intervention for Damages and Injunctive Relief 02/07/2004
EE-CA-0192-0003 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order on Intervenor's Motion for a Protective Order 08/31/2004 (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0192-0004 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Decree 11/21/2005
EE-CA-0192-0005 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
EEOC Litigation Settlement Report (November 2005) 11/21/2005
EE-CA-0192-0006 PDF | Detail
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 -