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