On August 13, 2001, two female employees of the New Orleans Saints Organization filed a lawsuit against the New Orleans Saints, its owner, and two of its partner corporations. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged various violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ...
read more >
On August 13, 2001, two female employees of the New Orleans Saints Organization filed a lawsuit against the New Orleans Saints, its owner, and two of its partner corporations. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged various violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). One of the two plaintiffs also alleged violations of the Family & Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 and 28 U.S.C. Section 2202 as well as injunctive relief.
With respect to the Civil Rights Acts and the Equal Pay Act, the plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendants (1) from imposing on their female employees unequal standards of discipline and evaluation, (2) from adversely impacting the female employees via the defendants' "restructuring" of the New Orleans Saints organization, (3) from denying female employees promotional opportunities and equal pay opportunities, (4) from maintaining a hostile workplace, (5) from sexual harassing the female employees, and (6) from retaliating against plaintiffs because of the exercise of their civil rights.
With respect to the FLSA, the plaintiffs alleged that they frequently worked over forty hours a week but received either no additional compensation for those hours or insufficient compensation for those hours, in violation of the overtime provisions of Section 207. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants failed and/or refused to keep the appropriate records regarding employee overtime, in violation of the record-keeping requirements of Section 211(c).
With respect to the FMLA, the plaintiff alleged that defendants intentionally interfered with and/or restrained or denied the exercise (or attempted exercise) of rights to which she was entitled under FMLA. The plaintiff asked the court to secure the protection of and redress the deprivation of her rights under the act, seeking restitution of all rights, privileges, benefits, and income that would have been received by her but for defendants' practices.
On May 30, 2002, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to extend deadlines for class certification. The plaintiffs had moved to extend the deadline for the filing of a class motion twice before, which the court had granted both times. The court denied this third motion, finding that the plaintiffs had "demonstrated a lack of interest in aggressively pursuing the interests of the putative class in matters of discovery and class certification" in violation of FRCP 23(a)(4), which requires that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
On November 12, 2003, the parties successfully negotiated a confidential settlement agreement, and the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Judge Eldon E. Fallon) dismissed the case without costs and without prejudice. On January 2, 2004, the court ordered dismissal of all of the defendants with prejudice. Subsequently, the law firm that had represented the plaintiffs from the start of the action until shortly after an unsuccessful settlement conference in February 2003 filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Reopen Case and to File Intervention. The court denied this motion on February 12, 2004, holding that the law firm failed to provide a basis to accomplish re-opening the case in the face of the prior dismissal with prejudice and that the law firm failed to satisfy the timeliness requirements of filing a motion to intervene provided under FRCP 24(a).Jordan Rossen - 06/26/2010