University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Docket / Court 2:05-cv-01125-KJD-NJK ( D. Nev. )
State/Territory Nevada
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In September 2005, the Los Angeles District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against Prospect Airport Services, Inc. The complaint was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the ... read more >
In September 2005, the Los Angeles District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against Prospect Airport Services, Inc. The complaint was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The plaintiff alleged that a male employee was sexually harassed by a female co-worker, and that the defendant company did not take steps to remedy the situation.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, and on September 27, 2007 Judge Kent J. Dawson granted the motion. The court reasoned that the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough to constitute sexual harassment under Title VII, and that the employer could not be held responsible because the male employee had specified to supervisors that he did not wish to bring a charge of sexual harassment. The EEOC appealed the court's ruling.

Three years later, on September 3, 2010, Judge Andrew J. Kleinfield of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing the district court’s decision to grant judgment to the defendant. Judge Kleinfield held that the case was incorrectly withheld from a jury since the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence regarding sexual harassment and hostile work environment. Even though the plaintiff conceded that the male employee did not feel abused by his co-worker's first advances, the Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff had introduced evidence showing that the case should have been sent to a jury due to the frequency and pervasiveness of the continued advances.

The Court of Appeals then stayed the reversal of the district court’s decision pending the defendant’s appeal to the United States Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court did not grant certiorari to the defendant, the mandate reversing the lower court’s decision went into effect on February 9, 2011. The case was remanded to Judge Dawson.

During discovery, parties went back and forth moving to exclude testimonial evidence. In December 6, 2011, Judge Dawson granted defendant’s contested motion to bifurcate the case into two trials: one for liability and one for punitive damages. But ten days later, the parties notified the court that they reached a settlement. The defendant agreed to pay $75,000.00 by January 6, 2012 and the plaintiff had until January 10, 2012 to move for injunctive or other forms of non-monetary relief.

On January 10, 2012, the plaintiff exercised its discretion and moved for an injunction requiring defendant to implement effective employment policies and practices to comply with anti-discrimination law. Judge Dawson granted only part of the plaintiff’s motion in July 2012. The court found that the defendant company had already taken steps to ensure compliance with the sexual harassment provision of Title VII and both employees had since left the company. The granted portion of the injunction enjoined the defendant from violating the sexual harassment provision of Title VII for five years and required the company to implement a stronger anti-harassment policy and investigative procedure, including extensive employee trainings. In addition, the defendant had to submit monitoring reports once every six months for a period of three years. The case administratively closed in 2014 and is now closed.

Jason Chester - 05/30/2008
Richa Bijlani - 11/16/2019

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Affected Gender
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Provide antidiscrimination training
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Sex discrimination
Direct Suit on Merits
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) Prospect Airport Services, 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
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2012 - 2017
Filed 09/13/2005
Case Closing Year 2017
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
07-17221 (U.S. Court of Appeals)
EE-NV-0030-9001.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/21/2008
CV-S-05-1125-KJD-RJJ (D. Nev.)
EE-NV-0030-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/20/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint [ECF# 1]
EE-NV-0030-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/13/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [re: Summary Judgment] (2007 WL 2875155) (D. Nev.)
EE-NV-0030-0002.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 09/27/2007
Source: Westlaw
Judgment in a Civil Case [ECF# 46] (D. Nev.)
EE-NV-0030-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/27/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# 53] (621 F.3d 991)
EE-NV-0030-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 09/03/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 165] (2012 WL 3042693) (D. Nev.)
EE-NV-0030-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 07/25/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Court Grants EEOC Injunction Against Prospect Airport Services
EE-NV-0030-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/27/2012
show all people docs
Judges Dawson, Kent J. (D. Nev.) show/hide docs
EE-NV-0030-0005 | EE-NV-0030-9000 | EE-NV-0030-9001
Johnston, Robert J. (D. Nev.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
Kleinfeld, Andrew Jay (D. Alaska, Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
Plaintiff's Lawyers Farrell, Michael J (California) show/hide docs
Garcia, Lorena (California) show/hide docs
Mallik, Amrita (Hawaii) show/hide docs
McClinton, Gregory L (California) show/hide docs
Naccarato, Elizabeth A (Nevada) show/hide docs
Park, Anna Y. (California) show/hide docs
Tungol, Wilfredo (Hawaii) show/hide docs
Defendant's Lawyers Blair, Lauren (Illinois) show/hide docs
Garin, Joseph P (Nevada) show/hide docs
Geswein, Timothy J (Nevada) show/hide docs
Hibbard, James D (Nevada) show/hide docs
LaPointe, Martin K. (Illinois) show/hide docs
Murphy, Thomas W (Illinois) show/hide docs
Nordstrom, Shannon D (Nevada) show/hide docs
Ochoa, Angela Nakamura (Nevada) show/hide docs
Zakalik, Judah (Nevada) show/hide docs

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -