On September 25, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit against Video Only in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The EEOC complaint alleged that the defendant had engaged in harassment and retaliation based on race, national origin, and religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It sought injunctive and monetary relief.

On October 25, two employees of Video Only moved to intervene. They alleged discrimination and retaliation based on race, national origin and religion in violation of Title VII, and violations of 42 USC § 1981 and 15 USC § 1681n. Judge Garr King approved the intervention, but we do not have access to the order.

Over the next several months, the parties engaged in discovery.

The EEOC sought to consolidate this action with Video Only Inc (03:08-CV-00122), but the court denied this request on May 2, 2008.

On June 11, 2008, the court granted several motions for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgement for the plaintiffs on their retaliation claims, holding that Video Only was liable for the retaliation claims alleged under Title VII, ORS Ch. 659A, and § 1981. The Court also barred Video Only from raising the Faragher affirmative defense (If no tangible employment action was taken against the employee, the employer may prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence by showing: (1) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct the harassment; and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities or otherwise failed to avoid harm). The Court also concluded that Video Only violated part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act but left the issue of willfulness for the jury.

On July 23, 2008, the EEOC submitted a stipulated consent decree, which the Court approved a week later. This decree pertained to monetary and injunctive relief and had a duration of three years. For monetary relief, Video Only agreed to pay $630,000 to the plaintiffs. For the injunctive relief, the defendant agreed to refrain from retaliation and to develop anti-discrimination policies and procedures. These policies and procedures included providing anti-discrimination training for employees of Video Only Inc and ensuring that the supervisors and managers were held accountable for ensuring compliance with Title VII. In addition, the defendant agreed to report its compliance with Title VII and this decree to the EEOC.

On August 12 2008, the court dismissed the case between the defendant and two intervenor-plaintiffs.

The case docket shows no indication of non-compliance of the consent decree and the duration of the consent decree has ended. Presumably the case is closed.

Daisy Manning - 06/02/2008
Sean Whetstone - 07/06/2018
Michael Beech - 03/09/2019


compress summary