University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. ROQUEMORE, PRINGLE & MOORE EE-CA-0187
Docket / Court CV-01-06561 SVW ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In July 2001, the EEOC district office of Los Angeles, California brought this suit against Rocquemore, Pringle & Moore Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of California. Although the complaint is not available, the 2002 Office of General Counsel's Annual Report states that ... read more >
In July 2001, the EEOC district office of Los Angeles, California brought this suit against Rocquemore, Pringle & Moore Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of California. Although the complaint is not available, the 2002 Office of General Counsel's Annual Report states that the allegations were for national origin and sexual harassment, as well as retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Annual Report states that a managing partner at the firm disparaged the aggrieved employees and fired them after they complained of the harassment. There are no specifics concerning the sexual or national origin harassment currently available. Soon after the trial was set for March 2002, the parties jointly filed for a settlement conference with the presiding judge and came to a settlement. A consent judgment was then entered.

Although the Annual Report reports two aggrieved employees, the consent decree addresses three. Specifically, the defendant agreed to pay $45,000, $50,000, and $30,000 to three individuals to settle all damage claims relating to this litigation. The defendant was enjoined from engaging in any form of employment discrimination or retaliation. Further, an EEO Consultant was appointed to ensure the defendant's compliance with Title VII and to submit reports of any incidents or complaints of unlawful discrimination to the EEOC within 30 days of their occurrence. Lastly, the defendant was to post notices of his anti-harassment policy in its office, keeps all pertinent employment records relating to unlawful discrimination, and to make them available for EEOC inspection during the three year period the consent decree was in affect.

Joel Pettit - 06/04/2007


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
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
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
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
State law
State Anti-Discrimination Law
Defendant(s) Rocquemore, Pringle & Moore Inc.
Rocquemore, Pringle & Moore 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 2002 - 2005
Case Closing Year 2002
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)
CV-01-06561 SVW (C.D. Cal.) 01/16/2002
EE-CA-0187-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Consent Decree 05/09/2007
EE-CA-0187-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Office of General Counsel Annual Report Fiscal Year 2002 05/09/2007
EE-CA-0187-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: EEOC.gov
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 -