University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. SHAHIL INC (d/b/a DUNKIN DONUTS/BASKIN ROBBINS) EE-PA-0150
Docket / Court 2:06-cv-03429-JKG ( E.D. Pa. )
State/Territory Pennsylvania
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
On August 3, 2003, the Philadelphia office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit under Title VII against Shahil, Inc. (doing business as Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The EEOC alleged that the defendants ... read more >
On August 3, 2003, the Philadelphia office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit under Title VII against Shahil, Inc. (doing business as Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The EEOC alleged that the defendants had violated the rights of six female employees by subjecting them to sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace at the hands of their supervisor.

On September 18, 2006, one of the complainants intervened as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The court granted her the right to intervene on November 16, 2006. On February 12, 2008, the parties entered into a consent decree, and the court signed it. Under the consent decree, the defendants agreed to pay the intervening plaintiff's counsel $1000.00 in fees. The defendants also agreed to pay the complainants $44,000.00 in compensatory damages.

Under the decree, the defendants were enjoined from subjecting their female employees to sexual harassment and from subjecting them to retaliation for complaining of harassment. They agreed to expunge the employment records of all of the complainants from any mention of this lawsuit, and they agreed not to make any mention of the events involved in this lawsuit to any future potential employers that contact them about these complainants. They agreed to promulgate an anti-discrimination policy for their business, and to post and distribute notice of this new policy to all employees. The defendants agreed to conduct annual EEO training for all employees who worked at the Leola facility, with an emphasis on what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace, how to keep Shahil free of harassment, and what constitutes unlawful retaliation. The defendants agreed to provide a copy of all materials used at the training session to the EEOC. The defendants agreed to allow the EEOC to send a representative onto their premises to ensure that they had complied with all of the terms of the consent decree. The defendants were also to certify in writing to the EEOC with 5 days of each training session.that they had completed the required annual training. The defendants agreed to make any reports of complaints and investigations available to the EEOC within 10 days of a request to see them.

Kristen Sagar - 05/14/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Expungement of Employment Record
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Neutral/Positive Reference
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
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
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action State Anti-Discrimination Law
State law
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Shahil 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 2008 - 2011
Case Closing Year 2008
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)
2:06-cv-03429-JKG (E.D. Pa.) 02/12/2008
EE-PA-0150-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 08/03/2006
EE-PA-0150-0001.pdf | Detail
Plaintiff-Intervenor's Complaint 11/16/2006
EE-PA-0150-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amended Complaint 10/26/2007
EE-PA-0150-0003.pdf | Detail
Plaintiff-Intervener's Amended Complaint 10/26/2007
EE-PA-0150-0004.pdf | Detail
Consent Decree 02/12/2008
EE-PA-0150-0005.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 -