On September 30, 2005, the Phoenix District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs sued Creative Networks, LLC and its parent company, Res-Care, Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff, representing ...
read more >
On September 30, 2005, the Phoenix District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs sued Creative Networks, LLC and its parent company, Res-Care, Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff, representing two former employees of Creative Networks, LLC, asked the court for a permanent injunction, a policy change within the company, and monetary compensation. The plaintiffs claimed that the two employees had been retaliated against after they had opposed unlawful discrimination in the workplace. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that one employee had been terminated in retaliation and the other employee had been threatened with termination.
On November 18, 2005, Res-Care, Inc., the parent company to Creative Networks, LLC, moved for dismissal. As a parent company, it claimed that it had no control over its subsidiaries' employee practices. On December 29, 2006, Judge Stephen M. McNamee rejected the motion because, prior to discovery, there remained an issue of material fact as to Res-Care's involvement. (Labor & Empl. L. P 141108) Following discovery, on March 19, 2009, Judge McNamee granted Res-Care's April 11, 2008 motion for summary judgment. Judge McNamee found that the parent company and the subsidiary were distinct corporate entities and there was no evidence that Res-Care was involved in the subsidiary's hiring or firing practices.
On March 9, 2009, Judge McNamee denied the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment with regard to one complainant's allegations. The defendant alleged (1) that a "counseling session" with one employee was not an adverse employment action and (2) there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal link between the alleged retaliation and the employee's participation in a Title VII charge. Judge McNamee found that the evidence provided by the EEOC was both proper and sufficient.
On January 15, 2010, Judge McNamee denied the defendant's April 10, 2009 motion for summary judgment with regard to same employee. In this motion, the defendant asserted (1) the employee's participation as a named witness was not protected under Title VII, and (2) the defendant had a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for the counseling session. Judge McNamee rejected both assertions.
On May 24, 2010, Judge McNamee signed and approved a consent decree. The decree imposed a permanent injunction on Creative Networks, LLC, enjoining the company from retaliating against its employees because of their opposition to discrimination or their participation in charges against unlawful discrimination. It also imposed notice, training, reporting, and retaliation policy requirements. It further granted $110,000 in monetary relief to the two employees and required the defendant to expunge their files and provide neutral references. The decree's effective period was 18 months, and there is nothing more on the docket - so presumably the matter ended in 2011.David Friedman - 05/21/2008
Gabriela Hybel - 11/17/2016