University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
HOME
ABOUT
FOR TEACHERS
SEARCH
QUESTIONS
RECENT ADDITIONS
feedback/
suggestions
log in/
register
Case Profile
new search
page permalink
Case Name
EEOC v. HARMAN-CHIU INC. KFC/TACO BELL
EE-CA-0098
Docket / Court
5:05-cv-03615-JF ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory
California
Case Type(s)
Equal Employment
Special Collection
EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization
EEOC
Case Summary
In September 2005, the San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Harman-Chiu, Inc., d/b/a KFC/Taco Bell, and Harman-Management Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title ...
read more >
In September 2005, the San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Harman-Chiu, Inc., d/b/a KFC/Taco Bell, and Harman-Management Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants subjected the charging parties and other similarly situated female employees to a sexually hostile work environment and retaliated against them by reducing their hours and terminating them. Three charging parties intervened in the suit in February 2006. After some scheduling orders, the parties participated in mediation in May 2006 and settled in September 2006 through a consent decree.
The three-year decree, containing non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses, required the defendants to: revise and distribute their EEO policies, develop complaint procedures, post notices of the decree, provide annual sexual harassment training for all employees, report to the EEOC at specified intervals, and pay $349,800. The defendants also agreed to provide the charging parties with neutral references, expunge their personnel files from all references to the charges of discrimination, and to provide them with an apology letter. The parties and intervenors stipulated to dismissal of the claims in October 2006; in October 2009, upon satisfaction of the consent decree, the EEOC moved for dismissal all claims, which was granted on October 27, 2009.
Michele Marxkors - 07/11/2007
Rachel Barr - 03/25/2018
compress summary
- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Apology
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Expungement of Employment Record
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Neutral/Positive Reference
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action
State Anti-Discrimination Law
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Case Details
click to show/hide detail
Defendant(s)
Harman-Chiu, Inc.
Harman-Management Corporation
Jorge Garcia
Plaintiff Description
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations
EEOC
Class action status sought
No
Class action status granted
No
Filed Pro Se
No
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
2006 - 2009
Filed
2005
Case Closing Year
2009
Case Ongoing
No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
See this case
at CourtListener.com
(May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Documents
click to show/hide detail
Court
Docket(s)
N.D. Cal.
11/17/2009
5:05-cv-03615-JF
EE-CA-0098-9000.pdf
|
Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
N.D. Cal.
02/17/2005
Complaint in Intervention [ECF# 25]
EE-CA-0098-0002.pdf
|
Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
09/08/2005
Complaint [ECF# 1]
EE-CA-0098-0001.pdf
|
Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
02/18/2006
First Amended Complaint [ECF# 26]
EE-CA-0098-0003.pdf
|
Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
09/26/2006
Consent Decree [ECF# 48]
EE-CA-0098-0004.pdf
|
Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
People
click to show/hide detail
show all people docs
Judges
Fogel, Jeremy D.
(N.D. Cal.)
show/hide docs
EE-CA-0098-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers
Hernandez, Evangelina Fierro
(Colorado)
show/hide docs
EE-CA-0098-9000
Peck, Jonathan T.
(California)
show/hide docs
EE-CA-0098-9000
Reisch, Jennifer Abby
(California)
show/hide docs
EE-CA-0098-9000
Tamayo, William Robert
(California)
show/hide docs
EE-CA-0098-9000
Villegas, Virginia
(California)
show/hide docs
EE-CA-0098-9000
Defendant's Lawyers
Bird, David L.
(Utah)
show/hide docs
EE-CA-0098-9000
Boehm, Bruce J.
(Utah)
show/hide docs
EE-CA-0098-9000
- click to show/hide ALL -
new search
page permalink
- top of page -
Contact
Report an Error
Privacy Policy