University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. KCD CONSTRUCTION INC EE-MN-0036
Docket / Court 0:05-cv-02122-DSD-SRN ( D. Minn. )
State/Territory Minnesota
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In September 2005, the EEOC Chicago District Office filed suit in United States District Court, District of Minnesota, against KCD Construction, Inc., alleging that the owner of the company and his sons subjected employees of Mexican descent to harassment based on their national origin, in ... read more >
In September 2005, the EEOC Chicago District Office filed suit in United States District Court, District of Minnesota, against KCD Construction, Inc., alleging that the owner of the company and his sons subjected employees of Mexican descent to harassment based on their national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

One of KCD's defenses was an affirmative defense stating that the EEOC had not met the class action requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; KCD argued that the EEOC was required to meet the Rule 23 requirements because the suit was for monetary relief, in addition to equitable relief. The EEOC filed a motion for summary judgment on this issue. The court granted the motion, holding that Rule 23 does not apply to the EEOC even when money damages are sought. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. KCD Construction, Inc., No. 05-2122, 2006 WL 549393 (D.Minn. Mar. 6, 2006). The defendant also moved for summary judgment on the entire claim; this motion was denied. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. KCD Construction, Inc., No. 05-2122, 2007 WL 1129220 (D.Minn. Apr. 16, 2007).

This case also saw a dispute over the prospect of KCD conducting discovery into the immigration status of the complainants; the court granted the EEOC's motion for a protective order and ruled that such information would not be subject to discovery.

In July of 2007, the case was resolved via a consent decree. KCD was ordered to pay a total of $41,500 in monetary relief. The decree also provided for injunctive relief: KCD was ordered to provide anti-discrimination training for all of its employees and the individual owners of the company, and KCD was required to establish anti-discrimination policies and procedures for handling employee complaints.

Jason Chester - 05/22/2008


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
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination-basis
National origin discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
National Origin/Ethnicity
Indian
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) KCD Construction, 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 2007 - 2009
Case Closing Year 2007
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)
0:05-cv-02122-DSD-SRN (D. Minn.) 07/25/2007
EE-MN-0036-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 09/14/2005
EE-MN-0036-0001.pdf | Detail
Order [Pl's Motion for Protective Order, Pl's Motion to Compel, and Def's Motion to Compel) 02/24/2006 (D. Minn.)
EE-MN-0036-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Granting Plaintiff's S/J Motion] 03/06/2006 (2006 WL 549393 / 2006 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 12408) (D. Minn.)
EE-MN-0036-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
EEOC Press Release 03/10/2006
EE-MN-0036-0005.pdf | Detail
Order [Denying Defendant's S/J Motion] 04/16/2007 (2007 WL 1129220 / 2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 28061) (D. Minn.)
EE-MN-0036-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Consent Decree 07/25/2007
EE-MN-0036-0006.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 -