University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. Lucent Technologies EE-CA-0133
Docket / Court 5:00-cv-01874-GJD ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Lucent Technologies, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2004. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California in January 2005. Because the dockets are the only ... read more >
The San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Lucent Technologies, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2004. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California in January 2005. Because the dockets are the only available documents, the allegations of discrimination are unknown.

In February 2005 the case was stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. The court ordered the case to remain stayed in October 2007. In December 2007, the parties were ordered to submit a joint status report every ninety days until the Supreme Court issued an order on the petition for certiorari in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. The joint status report filed on June 17, 2009 reported that the holding in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen was adverse to the EEOC's position. As a result, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the case. The parties stipulated to dismissal of the case, which was ordered by Judge Maxine Chesney on July 27, 2009.

Kevin Wilemon - 05/23/2008
Rachel Barr - 01/04/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
No EEOC Final Resolution Type
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action
Defendant(s) Lucent Technologies, Inc.
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 None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Filing Year 2004
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
2:04-cv-08168-RSWL-CT (C.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0133-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/24/2005
3:05-cv-00269-MMC (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0133-9001.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/27/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
No documents currently in the collection
Judges Chesney, Maxine M. (N.D. Cal.)
EE-CA-0133-9001
Plaintiff's Lawyers Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth (California)
EE-CA-0133-9001
Mitchell, Marcia L (California)
EE-CA-0133-9001
Peck, Jonathan T. (California)
EE-CA-0133-9001
Tamayo, William Robert (California)
EE-CA-0133-9001
Defendant's Lawyers Chomiak, Sarah N (Illinois)
EE-CA-0133-9001
Dritsas, William James (California)
EE-CA-0133-9001
Hurley, Lawrence J. (New York)
EE-CA-0133-9001
Rich, Allegra R. (Illinois)
EE-CA-0133-9001
Steinsapir, Kaye Ellen (California)
EE-CA-0133-9001

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -