University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. Aztec Inn Properties LLC (d/b/a Clarion Hotel - Randolph Park) EE-AZ-0015
Docket / Court 4:02-cv-00324-RCC ( D. Ariz. )
State/Territory Arizona
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Case Summary
On June 28, 2002, the Phoenix office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit under Title VII against Aztec Inn Properties LLC and HSL Properties Financial Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The EEOC alleged that the defendants had violated ... read more >
On June 28, 2002, the Phoenix office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit under Title VII against Aztec Inn Properties LLC and HSL Properties Financial Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The EEOC alleged that the defendants had violated the rights of five of their hotel's housekeeping staff members by discriminating against them on the basis of their mental retardation and/or Down's Syndrome. Specifically, they alleged that the defendants had harassed them, failed to provide reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, and discharged them wrongfully. On September 9, 2002, the complainants intervened in the case as plaintiffs.

On November 20, 2002, the defendants filed a third party complaint and asked the court to add Community Psychology Education Services, Ltd. (CPES) as a third-party defendant to the case. On February 20, 2003, CPES filed a motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint that had been filed against them. On December 4, 2003, the district court granted CPES's motion for summary judgment and dismissed them from the case. This dismissal was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by the other defendants on May 12, 2004.

Meanwhile, on April 3, 2003, the remaining defendants filed for summary judgment, but their request was denied by the court on May 19, 2003. After several failed settlement conferences, the defendants filed a motion for sanctions for violation of statutory conciliation mandates.

With these motions were pending, the parties reached a settlement and filed a consent decree with the district court on August 27, 2004. As part of the settlement, the third-party defendants agreed to drop their complaint against CPES. The district court adopted the consent decree on September 1, 2004, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal on October 4, 2004. Under the terms of the decree, the defendants agreed to pay the complainants $50,000.00 in compensatory damages, to be deposited into trust accounts for their usage, and $13,500.00 in attorneys' fees. They also agreed to expunge the employment records of the complainants of any mention of this lawsuit, to offer them the opportunity to be reinstated in their jobs, and to provide reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. The decree also enjoined the defendants from discriminating against any employee on the basis of a disability or retaliating against any employee who complaints of discrimination. They agreed to develop an anti-discrimination policy, and to enter into a contract with a service-provider that would utilize a crew of persons with developmental disabilities as housekeeping staff workers. They agreed to post and distribute notice of their anti-discrimination policy to all employees, and to hold annual 90-minute training sessions in disability law and the rights of disabled persons in the workplace, to be attended by all crew members and supervisory staff. The defendants were required to file bi-annual reports with the EEOC regarding their compliance with the terms of the consent decree. The defendants agreed to keep a written record of all employees who attend the training sessions, and the defendants were to keep that record for the duration of the consent decree. The EEOC and the ACDL were to be allowed to send representatives to the crew member anti-discrimination training sessions. The EEOC was also to have the right to enter the defendants' premises without notice to see whether they complied with the requirement that they post a notice of anti-discrimination laws in a prominent place in the workplace.

Justin Kanter - 03/17/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Expungement of Employment Record
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Reasonable Accommodation
Recordkeeping
Reinstatement
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria
Discrimination-area
Accommodation / Leave
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 12111 et seq.
Defendant(s) Aztec Inn Properties, LLC
Community Psychology Education Services, Ltd
HSL Properties Financial Corporation
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration 2004 - 2006
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)
04-16080 (U.S. Court of Appeals) 10/04/2004
EE-AZ-0015-9001.pdf | Detail
4:02-cv-00324-RCC (D. Ariz.) 10/07/2004
EE-AZ-0015-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
First Amended Complaint and Jury Trial Demand 07/01/2002
EE-AZ-0015-0001.pdf | Detail
Consent Decree 09/01/2004
EE-AZ-0015-0002.pdf | Detail
Judges Collins, Raner Christercunean (D. Ariz.)
EE-AZ-0015-0002 | EE-AZ-0015-9000
Pyle, Charles R. (D. Ariz.) [Magistrate]
EE-AZ-0015-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Daley-Rooney, Rose Ann (Arizona)
EE-AZ-0015-9000
O'Neill, Mary Jo (Arizona)
EE-AZ-0015-0001 | EE-AZ-0015-0002 | EE-AZ-0015-9000
Reams, Gwendolyn Young (District of Columbia)
EE-AZ-0015-0001
Rico, Jose De Jesus (Arizona)
EE-AZ-0015-9000 | EE-AZ-0015-9001
Shanley, Sally C. (Arizona)
EE-AZ-0015-0001 | EE-AZ-0015-0002 | EE-AZ-0015-9000
Smith, C. Emanuel (Alabama)
EE-AZ-0015-0001 | EE-AZ-0015-0002
Defendant's Lawyers Dacey, John R. (Arizona)
EE-AZ-0015-9000
Jutila, Sharon M. (Arizona)
EE-AZ-0015-0002 | EE-AZ-0015-9000 | EE-AZ-0015-9000
Selden, David A. (Arizona)
EE-AZ-0015-0002 | EE-AZ-0015-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -