University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. Amertac Holdings, Inc. EE-NY-0007
Docket / Court 7:03-cv-06128-SCR ( S.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The New York district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against the Amertac Holdings, Inc., American Tack & Hardware Co., Inc., and two individual defendants, in August 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Two ... read more >
The New York district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against the Amertac Holdings, Inc., American Tack & Hardware Co., Inc., and two individual defendants, in August 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Two complainants were allowed to intervene in June 2004. The complaints for this case are not available. After a couple failed attempts by the Magistrate Judge to negotiate a settlement between the parties, jury trial was scheduled for November 10, 2008.

On October 16, 2008, the parties began settlement discussions. As they got close to settlement, the court ordered that the case be “discontinued,” although it could be reopened if a final settlement was not reached.

On December 8, 2008, the court approved the parties’ consent decree. The decree had five parts:
1) it prohibited sex discrimination.
2) it required that the defendants post the notice of resolution in areas visible to their employees, and send their employees a memo and copy of the notice.
3) The defendants were required to to adopt anti-discrimination policies and to train/retrain all their employees.
4) The defendants were required to report any complaints of discrimination by applicant or employees to the EEOC. When the defendants conducted a discrimination investigation, they were required to report the findings to the EEOC.
5) The defendants were required to pay $ 325,000 to the complainants. No party was awarded attorney fees and costs.

The decree was scheduled to run for three years after it was signed on December of 2008; the docket does not include anything further, so presumably the case ended in 2011.

Shankar Viswanathan - 05/30/2008
Sean Whetstone - 05/21/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Monitoring
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Training
Discrimination-area
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
No EEOC Final Resolution Type
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Defendant(s) American Tack & Hardware Co., Inc.
Amertac Holdings, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of two women and a class of women that were discriminated against because of their sex.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Unknown
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2008 - 2011
Case Closing Year 2011
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Microsoft Gender Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
Date: Oct. 14, 2016
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Age Discrimination Class Action seeks Fair Employment for Older PwC Applicants
http://www.pwcagecase.com/
Date: Apr. 27, 2016
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Smith Barney Gender Discrimination
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/employment/smith-barney/
Date: August 2008
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Date: Mar. 1, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law Faculty)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
Date: Apr. 1, 2001
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School Faculty)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
7:03-cv-06128-SCR (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0007-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/09/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Consent Decree [ECF# 81] (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0007-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/08/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Rakoff, Jed Saul (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0007-9000
Robinson, Stephen C. (S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0007-0001
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bissell, Katherine (New York)
EE-NY-0007-9000
Filippatos, Parisis G. (New York)
EE-NY-0007-0001 | EE-NY-0007-9000
Graziano, Louis (New York)
EE-NY-0007-9000
Grossman, Elizabeth (New York)
EE-NY-0007-0001
Koplen, Michael (New York)
EE-NY-0007-9000
Yamada, Stella Natsue (New York)
EE-NY-0007-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Lajewski, Leslie Ann (Ohio)
EE-NY-0007-0001 | EE-NY-0007-9000
Luckner, Steven (New Jersey)
EE-NY-0007-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -