University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. RD's Drive In/Exxon EE-AZ-0091
Docket / Court CIV 02 1911 PCT LOA ( D. Ariz. )
State/Territory Arizona
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The Phoenix District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against the owners of the RD's Drive In/Exxon in Page, Arizona, in September of 2002, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The only documents available were the docket from PACER, an EEOC press release from when the suit ... read more >
The Phoenix District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against the owners of the RD's Drive In/Exxon in Page, Arizona, in September of 2002, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The only documents available were the docket from PACER, an EEOC press release from when the suit was filed, a motion seeking enforcement of a settlement agreement, and a court order stating the terms of the agreement. The suit was based on National Origin discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendants required employees to sign an English only agreement, meaning the employees were only allowed to speak English when at work. This policy was problematic since the store was located adjacent to a Navajo Reservation. Four of the employees refused to sign the agreement.

The first major motion filed was a motion to dismiss one of the defendants, which was a joint motion and granted. Next, the complainants intervened in the suit. Then the case became a bit more complicated. On September 5, 2003 the parties reached a settlement conference during a settlement conference before the Magistrate Judge. Two weeks later at a status conference the parties said they would have the settlement agreement completed within two weeks. A month later the parties met for another status conference and told the court they were experiencing difficulties in the settlement process. In January of 2004 the plaintiffs moved to enforce the settlement agreement. After a hearing the judge ultimately granted the motion and entered judgment on October 13, 2004. The judgment set out basic terms for a settlement that was to be signed by the parties.

The judgment called for $7,400 to be paid within 16 months to each of the four complainants. In addition the defendant was to stop requiring English only, to participate in a community symposium, and conduct quarterly meetings with the staff to discuss problems and concerns. The defendant immediately appealed the judgment and the court granted a stay while the appeal was pending. The docket gives no outcome from the appeal.

Keri Livingston - 07/16/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Discrimination-basis
National origin discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Race
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Richard O Kidman
Richard O Kidman
Richard O. Kidman
Shauna Kidman
Steve Kidman
Steve Kidman
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 Voluntary Dismissal
Order Duration 2004 - 2007
Case Closing Year 2004
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)
3:02-cv-01911-SMM (D. Ariz.) 01/19/2005
EE-AZ-0091-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
EEOC Sues Arizona Diner for National Origin Bias Against Navajos and Other Native Americans 09/30/2002
EE-AZ-0091-0001.pdf | Detail
PLAINTIFF AND INTERVENORS' MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 01/09/2004
EE-AZ-0091-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: EEOC Regional Office
Memorandum of Decision and Order 09/10/2004 (D. Ariz.)
EE-AZ-0091-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: EEOC Regional Office
Judgment in a Civil Case 10/13/2004 (D. Ariz.)
EE-AZ-0091-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: EEOC Regional Office
Judgment 08/22/2007
EE-AZ-0091-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: EEOC Regional Office
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 -