Filed Date: June 27, 2001
Closed Date: Jan. 11, 2012
Clearinghouse coding complete
In June 2001, the Miami District Office of the EEOC represented an employee in this suit in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, against Federated Financial Services alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and state law. According to the complaint, female employees of the defendant were subjected to crude sexual remarks, and some of them were terminated when they complained. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment, compensatory damages, lost wages and backpay, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to judge Wilkie D. Ferguson. The employees intervened as plaintiffs, and the case was also consolidated as the lead case with EEOC v. Federated Financial, 0:01-cv-07542 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2001).
The defendant moved for summary judgment as to all of the plaintiffs on August 16, 2001. On March 2, 2002, the motion was denied. On January 3, 2003, the defendant refiled for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's Title VII claims. The EEOC cross-filed for summary judgment on January 27. Meanwhile, the parties unsuccessfully attended mediation proceedings and the case was reassigned to Judge Joan A. Lenard. On November 6, 2003, the court granted summary judgment in part for the defendant. The court granted as to the named plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies because she had filed her suit three days before the expiration of the mandatory 180-day waiting period after filing a charge with the EEOC. However, the court denied the defendant's motion as to the EEOC: the defendant had charged that the EEOC had improperly filed paperwork, but the court held for the EEOC that the agency had properly verified the claimants' documents.
The parties continued to vigorously litigate, and again, on February 4, 2004, the defendant moved to dismiss and for sanctions against the plaintiffs. He claimed that the employees fabricated their allegations of harassment in the workplace. However, after three futile referrals to ADR and a number of contested discovery motions, the parties filed a settlement with the court in July 2004 and the court denied the outstanding motions as moot. On August 5, the court entered a consent decree in which the defendant was ordered to pay a total of $240,000, to implement a new anti-discrimination policy, and to train its employees in antidiscrimination law. The parties agreed that the EEOC would continue to monitor defendant through its reporting. And the court would retain jurisdiction over the decree for three years.
In April 2007, the EEOC alleged that the defendant had not fully complied with the consent decree and moved for the court to enforce the decree. Specifically, the EEOC claimed that the defendant had failed to comply with injunctive relief by not providing adequate documentation of trainings, and that the defendant still owed $100,000 in payments. The defendant subsequently moved to modify the decree, arguing that it made a good faith efforts to comply despite financial difficulties in its business and that the decree should be modified to reflect its financial status. The court extended its jurisdiction by six months until February 29, 2008, in order to resolve the issues.
The court's jurisdiction continued, and on October 6, 2009, Magistrate Judge Torres recommended that the court grant the plaintiff's motion to hold the defendant had violated the decree. On February 25, 2010, the court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation. The court found that the defendant was clearly in violation of its obligation to pay over $110,000 as ordered by the decree. The issue of enforcing injunctive relief had become moot, however, and so the court opted not to use its equitable authority to hold the defendant in contempt. Rather, the court extended the decree by an additional sixty days. 2010 WL 11590869; 2010 WL 680836.
On June 30, 2010, the parties entered a settlement with the court. The defendant had entered bankruptcy proceedings that year. Instead, the parties settled that the defendant would pay the remainder of the judgment in 18 monthly installments via his creditors. On January 11, 2012, the court entered a satisfaction of judgment that the defendant had completed his payments. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Kevin Wilemon (6/12/2008)
Chelsea Rinnig (1/12/2020)
EEOC v. Federated Financial Services, Inc., Southern District of Florida (2001)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5580704/parties/forry-v-federated-financial/
Boehringer, Maria Kate (Florida)
Cooper, Cheryl A (Florida)
Curtin, Nora E. (Florida)
Dolin, Susan Leslie (Florida)
Andre, Tony (Florida)
Ferguson, Wilkie D. Jr. (Florida)
Lenard, Joan A. (Florida)
McAliley, Chris M. (Florida)
Simonton, Andrea Miles (Florida)
Snow, Lurana S. (Florida)
Torres, Edwin G. (Florida)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5580704/forry-v-federated-financial/
Last updated April 2, 2024, 3:06 a.m.
State / Territory: Florida
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 27, 2001
Closing Date: Jan. 11, 2012
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
EEOC on behalf of intervenor employee plaintiff
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Denied
Defendants
Federated Financial Services, Inc., Private Entity/Person
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: 240,000
Order Duration: 2004 - 2012
Content of Injunction:
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination-basis:
Affected Sex or Gender:
EEOC-centric: