The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against Jefferson Dental Clinics, P.A., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in August 2004. The case was assigned to Judge David Godbey. The complaint was filed on behalf of four female employees alleging ...
read more >
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against Jefferson Dental Clinics, P.A., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in August 2004. The case was assigned to Judge David Godbey. The complaint was filed on behalf of four female employees alleging they had experienced sexual harassment and constructive discharge for complaining in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC sought monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of four former female employees of Jefferson Dental.
In January 2005, the four female complainants moved to intervene in the case. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in March 2005. Both of these motions were denied on September 7, 2005: the proposed intervenors could not intervene because they had already brought a suit on the same claims in state court. The defendant could not get summary judgment based on the existing state court case because the EEOC and the proposed intervenors were not in privity with each other. 2005 WL 2170858.
On February 3, 2006, the defendant filed a motion for an interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial of summary judgment. On May 29, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order in part, requiring summary judgment in favor of the defendant on some but not all of the EEOC’s claims, and remanded the case. At the Fifth Circuit, the case was heard before Judge Carolyn King, Judge Wiener, and Judge Edith Brown Clement. 478 F.3d 690.
On May 21, 2008, the parties reached a settlement agreement, and the court entered a consent decree. Under the terms of this consent decree, Jefferson Dental had to publish a non-harassment policy and provide non-harassment training for its employees. The consent decree was to last for one year after its date of entry, during which the district court would have jurisdiction to enforce it.
No entries appear in the docket since 2008. The consent decree expired in May 2009, so the case is presumably closed.
Kevin Wilemon - 10/17/2008
Rebecca Strauss - 07/06/2018
compress summary
