Case: EEOC v. MAGNETEK, INC.

1:00-cv-01041 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

Filed Date: Feb. 3, 2000

Closed Date: June 21, 2001

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In February 2000, the Memphis Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit against Magnetek, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. We do not have a copy of the complaint; therefore, the exact allegations involved are unknown. However, it appears from the consent decree that the complaint alleged the defendant discriminated against women by failing to hire female applicants for operative positions in its facility in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Following some discovery, the parties settled the lawsuit in June 2001 through a consent decree. The consent decree required the defendant to pay $200,000 to an unspecified number of individuals.

Summary Authors

David Friedman (12/17/2007)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:00-cv-01041

Docket

EEOC v. Magnetek Inc

June 21, 2001

June 21, 2001

Docket
26

1:00-cv-01041

Consent Decree

EEOC v. Magnetek, Inc.

June 21, 2001

June 21, 2001

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

Last updated March 18, 2024, 3:03 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT; summons waived - CJT (GN) (Entered: 02/04/2000)

Feb. 3, 2000

Feb. 3, 2000

2

SUMMONS WAIVED date executed 3/17/00 as to Magnetek Inc (EJC) (Entered: 03/24/2000)

March 24, 2000

March 24, 2000

3

ANSWER by defendant Magnetek Inc to [1-1] and affirmative defenses - CJT (EJC) (Entered: 04/21/2000)

April 20, 2000

April 20, 2000

4

SETTING LETTER ; scheduling conference set for 4:00 6/5/00 Rm 345 U. S. Courthouse, Jackson, before MagJBreen (BPH) (Entered: 04/25/2000)

April 25, 2000

April 25, 2000

5

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff EEOC by Draga G. Anthony - CJT (EJC) (Entered: 05/26/2000)

May 26, 2000

May 26, 2000

6

NOTICE OF FILING OF report of Rule 26 (f) planning meeting by plaintiff EEOC, defendant Magnetek Inc - CJBr (EJC) (Entered: 06/05/2000)

June 5, 2000

June 5, 2000

7

SCHEDULING ORDER 16(b) Mag Judge J. D. Breen ; motion filing deadline set for 8/17/01 ; discovery deadline set for Rule 26 Expert for Pla 12/15/00, Dft 3/16/01 ; Document Production: 6/15/01; Depositions: 6/15/01; Final List Wit and Exh for Pla and Dft 9/28/01; Motions in Limine: 9/14/01; proposed pretrial order to be entered on 10/19/01 ; jury trial set for 10/29/01 at 9:30 ; deadline for joining parties set for Pla and Dft 11/3/00 ; deadline for amending pleadings set for Pla and Dft 11/3/00 (cc: all counsel) (EJC) (Entered: 06/06/2000)

June 6, 2000

June 6, 2000

8

ORDER SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL by Judge James D. Todd jury trial 9:30 10/29/01, jpto due by 10/19/01 (cc: all counsel) CJT, Ct Reporter, Case Mgr, Jury Deputy, SP (BPH) (Entered: 06/13/2000)

June 13, 2000

June 13, 2000

9

Dft's initial RULE 26(a) Disclosures by Magnetek Inc - CJT (EJC) (Entered: 07/31/2000)

July 31, 2000

July 31, 2000

11

MEMORANDUM in support of motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and individual relief during the trial of this case and to bifurcate discovery in this case [10-1] cjt (BPH) (Entered: 08/07/2000)

Aug. 7, 2000

Aug. 7, 2000

10

JOINT MOTION to bifurcate the issues of liability and individual relief during the trial of this case and to bifurcate discovery in this case CJT w/p/o (BPH) Modified on 08/07/2000 (Entered: 08/07/2000)

Aug. 7, 2000

Aug. 7, 2000

12

PROPOSED Order Bifurcating the issues of liability and individual relief during the trial of this case and bifurcating the discovery in this case (BPH) (Entered: 08/07/2000)

Aug. 7, 2000

Aug. 7, 2000

13

ORDER BIFURCATING THE ISUES OF LIABILITY AND INDIVIDUAL RELIEF DURING THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE AND BIFURCATING THE DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE by Judge James D. Todd granting motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and individual relief during the trial of this case and to bifurcate discovery in this case [10-1] (cc: all counsel) (EJC) (Entered: 08/08/2000)

Aug. 7, 2000

Aug. 7, 2000

14

MOTION by plaintiff, defendant to amend (EJC) (Entered: 10/19/2000)

Oct. 19, 2000

Oct. 19, 2000

15

PROPOSED ORDER submitted by plaintiff, defendant - org to JT (EJC) (Entered: 10/19/2000)

Oct. 19, 2000

Oct. 19, 2000

16

ORDER by Judge James D. Todd granting motion to amend [14-1] discovery ddl - plaintiff's expert witness discl extended from 12/15/00 to 2/15/01 and defendant's expert witness discl extended from 3/16/01 to 5/16/01 (cc: all counsel) (EJC) (Entered: 10/20/2000)

Oct. 20, 2000

Oct. 20, 2000

17

Joint MOTION by plaintiff, defendant to amend (modify) rule 16(b) scheduling order - CJT w/p/o (EJC) (Entered: 10/24/2000)

Oct. 24, 2000

Oct. 24, 2000

18

PROPOSED ORDER submitted by plaintiff EEOC, defendant Magnetek Inc - org to JT (EJC) (Entered: 10/24/2000)

Oct. 24, 2000

Oct. 24, 2000

19

ORDER by Judge James D. Todd granting motion to amend (modify) rule 16(b) scheduling order [17-1] - ddln for pla's expert witness disclosure extended from 12/15/00 to 2/15/01 and ddln for dft's expert witness extended from 3/16/01 to 5/16/01 - (cc: all counsel) (EJC) (Entered: 10/25/2000)

Oct. 25, 2000

Oct. 25, 2000

20

Joint MOTION by plaintiff, defendant to extend time to respond to pla's first interrogatories, first requests for production of documents and pla's second interrogatories and for leave to modify the 16(b) scheduling order - CJT w/p/o (EJC) (Entered: 11/03/2000)

Nov. 3, 2000

Nov. 3, 2000

21

PROPOSED ORDER submitted by plaintiff EEOC, defendant Magnetek Inc - org to JT (EJC) (Entered: 11/03/2000)

Nov. 3, 2000

Nov. 3, 2000

22

ORDER by Judge James D. Todd granting motion to extend time to respond to pla's first interrogatories, first requests for production of documents and pla's second interrogatories and for leave to modify the 16 (b) scheduling order [20-1] - DEADLINE FOR PLNT EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE IS FEB 15,2001 TO MAR 30, 2001; DEADLINE FOR DFT EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE IS FROM MAY 16, 2001 TO MAY 25, 2001; DFT HAS UNTIL JAN 30, 2001 TO RESPOND TO PLT FIST INTERR, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND PLT SECOND INTERR (cc: all counsel) (SKP) (Entered: 11/06/2000)

Nov. 3, 2000

Nov. 3, 2000

23

Joint MOTION by plaintiff EEOC, defendant Magnetek Inc to extend deadln for dft's expert disclosure and for completing discovery - CJT w/p/o (EJC) (Entered: 05/11/2001)

May 11, 2001

May 11, 2001

24

PROPOSED ORDER submitted by plaintiff EEOC, defendant Magnetek Inc - OJT (EJC) (Entered: 05/11/2001)

May 11, 2001

May 11, 2001

25

ORDER by Chief Judge James D. Todd granting motion to extend deadln for dft's expert disclosure and for completing discovery [23-1] discovery ddl reset for dft's expert witness disclosure from 5/25/01 to 6/15/01 and ddl reset for completing discovery from 6/15/01 to 8/3/01 (cc: all counsel) (EJC) (Entered: 05/16/2001)

May 14, 2001

May 14, 2001

26

CONSENT DECREE by Chief Judge James D. Todd : terminating case - all claims of gender discrimination (which include but are not limited to lawsuits, charges filed with EEOC and charges filed with the Tennessee Human Rights Commission) concerning applicants for employment at MegneTek's Lexington, TN facility from 4/21/93 to 2/3/00, which have been or could have been made by EEOC shall be deemed to fully settled and finally resolved. All claimes of EEOC alleging gender discrimination concerning applicants for employment at MagneTek's Lexington, TN facility from 4/21/93 to 2/3/00 are released and waived. EEOC and MagneTek will each bear its own attys' fees and cots (cc: all counsel) (EJC) (Entered: 06/26/2001)

June 21, 2001

June 21, 2001

Clearinghouse

Case Details

State / Territory: Tennessee

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 3, 2000

Closing Date: June 21, 2001

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

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

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Magnetek, Inc. (Lexington, Tennessee), Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Monetary Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 200000

Issues

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Treatment

Hiring

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex or Gender:

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits