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 issues an order on the petition for certiorari in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. The case is still ongoing in the district court as of 4/22/2008.

Kevin Wilemon - 05/23/2008


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
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
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Case Ongoing Yes
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)
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)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

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 -