Case: EEOC v. Sara Lee Corporation

1:06-cv-00645 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Filed Date: Sept. 29, 2006

Closed Date: Aug. 9, 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The EEOC's Indianapolis office filed this suit on September 29, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati). The complaint alleged that defendant Sara Lee Corporation violated Title VII, EPA, ADEA, and the ADA by requiring employees to waive their right to file an EEO claim before they could receive severance pay. A complainant intervened in the suit. The defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in regard to the complaint of both the EEOC and the intervenor. The parties entered notice of voluntary dismissal on August 8, 2007 and the court dismissed the case on August 9, 2007.

Summary Authors

William Burns (3/9/2008)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:06-cv-00645

Docket [PACER]

Aug. 9, 2007

Aug. 9, 2007

Docket
1

1:06-cv-00645

Complaint

Sept. 29, 2006

Sept. 29, 2006

Complaint
11

1:06-cv-00645

Intervenor Complaint

Jan. 15, 2007

Jan. 15, 2007

Complaint
22

1:06-cv-00645

Order [Dismissing Case]

Aug. 9, 2007

Aug. 9, 2007

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated March 17, 2024, 3:15 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
2

Summons Issued as to Sara Lee Corporation. (scot, ) Modified docket text on 10/2/2006 (scot1, ). (Entered: 09/29/2006)

Sept. 29, 2006

Sept. 29, 2006

3

MOTION to Intervene as Party Plaintiff (Ava Smith-Thompson) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Complaint)(Wood, Carol) (Entered: 10/25/2006)

Oct. 25, 2006

Oct. 25, 2006

4

SUMMONS Returned Executed Sara Lee Corporation served on 10/26/2006, answer due 11/15/2006. (Bird, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/03/2006)

Nov. 3, 2006

Nov. 3, 2006

5

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer New date requested 12/5/2006. by Defendant Sara Lee Corporation. (Evans, Lisa) (Entered: 11/14/2006)

Nov. 14, 2006

Nov. 14, 2006

6

NOTATION ORDER granting 5 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Sara Lee Corporation answer due by 12/5/2006. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 11/15/2006. (km, ) (Entered: 11/15/2006)

Nov. 15, 2006

Nov. 15, 2006

7

MOTION to Dismiss and Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by Defendant Sara Lee Corporation. Responses due by 12/29/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D)(Evans, Lisa) (Entered: 12/05/2006)

Dec. 5, 2006

Dec. 5, 2006

8

RESPONSE to Motion re 7 MOTION to Dismiss and Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Declaration of Deputy District Director)(Bird, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

Dec. 12, 2006

Dec. 12, 2006

9

REPLY to Response to Motion re 7 MOTION to Dismiss and Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Defendant Sara Lee Corporation's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion To Dismiss filed by Defendant Sara Lee Corporation. (Evans, Lisa) (Entered: 12/27/2006)

Dec. 27, 2006

Dec. 27, 2006

10

NOTATION ORDER granting 3 Motion to Intervene by Ava Smith-Thompson as a Party Plaintiff. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 1/10/2007. (km1, ) (Entered: 01/11/2007)

Jan. 11, 2007

Jan. 11, 2007

Remark - Counsel for Intervenor Plaintiff is hereby directed to electronically file their Complaint via CM/ECF. (km1, ) (Entered: 01/11/2007)

Jan. 11, 2007

Jan. 11, 2007

11

Intervenor COMPLAINT Against Defendant Sara Lee Corporation , filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Ava Smith-Thompson, Defendant Sara Lee Corporation.(Wood, Carol) (Entered: 01/15/2007)

Jan. 15, 2007

Jan. 15, 2007

12

STIPULATION re 11 Intervenor Complaint For Defendant Sara Lee Corporation to Answer, Move or Otherwise Plead In Response To Complaint Filed By Plaintiff-Intervenor, Ava Smith-Thompson by Intervenor Plaintiff Ava Smith-Thompson, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Sara Lee Corporation. (Evans, Lisa) (Entered: 02/06/2007)

Feb. 6, 2007

Feb. 6, 2007

13

AGREED ORDER extending time until 3/25/07 for Sara Lee to plead, answer, or otherwise respond to 11 Intervenor Complaint. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 3/6/07. (scot1, ) (Entered: 03/06/2007)

March 6, 2007

March 6, 2007

14

MOTION to Dismiss And Rule 12(c) Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings In Response To The Complaint Of Plaintiff-Intervenor, Ava Smith Thompsonby Defendant Sara Lee Corporation. Responses due by 4/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Complaint# 2 Exhibit B - EEOC, Plaintiff, BARBARA ASTON, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant v. OLSTEN STAFFING SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.)(Evans, Lisa) Modified docket text on 3/27/2007 (eh1, ). (Entered: 03/26/2007)

March 26, 2007

March 26, 2007

15

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Sara Lee Corporation's Combined Rule 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss And Rule 12(c) Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings In Response To The Complaint Of Plaintiff-Intervenor, Ava Smith Thompson New date requested 4/26/2007. by Intervenor Plaintiff Ava Smith-Thompson. (Wood, Carol) (Entered: 04/17/2007)

April 17, 2007

April 17, 2007

16

NOTATION ORDER granting 15 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 14 MOTION to Dismiss. Responses due by 4/26/2007. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 4/18/07. (scot1, ) (Entered: 04/18/2007)

April 18, 2007

April 18, 2007

17

NOTICE of Hearing:Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 6/28/2007 09:30 AM in chambers before S Arthur Spiegel. (km1, ) (Entered: 04/19/2007)

April 19, 2007

April 19, 2007

18

RESPONSE in Opposition re 14 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Sara Lee Corporation's Combined Rule 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss And Rule 12(c) Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings In Response To The Complaint Of Plaintiff-Intervenor, Ava Smith Thompson MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Sara Lee Corporation's Combined Rule 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss And Rule 12(c) Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings In Response To The Complaint Of Plaintiff-Intervenor, Ava Smith Thompson filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Ava Smith-Thompson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Carol S. Wood) (Wood, Carol) (Entered: 04/26/2007)

April 26, 2007

April 26, 2007

19

NOTICE of Hearing:Preliminary Pretrial Conference RESET for 7/19/2007 09:30 AM in chambers before S Arthur Spiegel. (km1, ) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

June 1, 2007

June 1, 2007

20

NOTICE of Hearing: Preliminary Pretrial Conference RESET for 8/28/2007 03:00 PM in chambers before Judge S Arthur Spiegel. (km1, ) (Entered: 07/20/2007)

July 20, 2007

July 20, 2007

21

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by the parties. (Bird, Kenneth) Modified on 8/12/2007 (tt1, ). (Entered: 08/08/2007)

Aug. 8, 2007

Aug. 8, 2007

22

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice pursuant to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Stipulation 21. Each side will bear its own costs and fees. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 8/8/2007. (km1, ) Modified Docket Text on 8/9/2007 (km1, ). (Entered: 08/09/2007)

Aug. 9, 2007

Aug. 9, 2007

Case Details

State / Territory: Ohio

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 29, 2006

Closing Date: Aug. 9, 2007

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Sara Lee Corporation (Cincinnati), Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.

Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Treatment

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits

Private Party intervened in EEOC suit