Filed Date: Sept. 26, 2006
Closed Date: 2010
Clearinghouse coding complete
The Chicago and Minneapolis offices of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against Sara Lee Corporation, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota on September 26, 2006. The case was assigned to Judge Lawrence Piersol. The complaint, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleged that the Corporation had engaged in racial discrimination against employees. More specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendant discriminated against three black former Sara Lee employees by failing to promote them because of their race. The EEOC sought injunctive and monetary relief for the claimants.
The claimants subsequently filed complaints as intervenor plaintiffs on December 12, 2006. In addition to the claims included in the EEOC complaint, the intervenor complaint alleged that the defendant retaliated against the claimants for complaining about the discrimination, the defendant created a hostile work environment, and the defendant constructively discharged the claimants. The intervenor complaint also made claims under South Dakota law. Neither the EEOC nor Sara Lee objected to the intervention, and the court granted intervention on February 6, 2007.
On June 29, 2007, the EEOC filed an amended complaint, removing all reference to one of the intervenor plaintiffs because it decided that using public resources to recover this plaintiff’s victim-specific relief would be inappropriate.
On November 25, 2008, the parties reached a settlement agreement and filed a proposed consent decree. Six days later, the court approved the consent decree. The consent decree required Sara Lee to provide African-American employees with the same training and conditions of employment as all its other employees and enjoined Sara Lee from retaliating against employees for asserting their Title VII rights. Sara Lee also had to reform its internal complaint procedures and hiring/promotion procedures, as well as provide anti-discrimination training sessions to its managers and supervisors. To ensure compliance, Sara Lee had to report back to the EEOC annually with a certification of compliance, as well as notify the EEOC of any complaints of race discrimination or retaliation. Additionally, Sara Lee agreed to pay $245,000 in damages, to be distributed among the three claimants. The duration of the consent decree was two years, during which the court retained jurisdiction to enforce its terms.
On December 8, 2008, the court dismissed this case with prejudice. The order of dismissal is the final entry in the docket; there is nothing to suggest noncompliance with the consent decree. So, the case presumably closed in December 2010 with the expiration of the consent decree.
Summary Authors
Justin Kanter (6/2/2008)
Rebecca Strauss (7/2/2018)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4757306/parties/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-sara-lee-corporation/
Hendrickson, John C. (Illinois)
Kamp, Jean P. (Illinois)
Connolly, Katie M (Minnesota)
Leonard, Michael I. (Illinois)
Hoy, Scott G. (South Dakota)
Piersol, Lawrence L. (South Dakota)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4757306/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-sara-lee-corporation/
Last updated Jan. 23, 2024, 3:03 a.m.
State / Territory: South Dakota
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 26, 2006
Closing Date: 2010
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of three Sara Lee employees who alleged that they were denied promotions because they were black.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Sara Lee Corporation (Sioux Falls, South Dakota), Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
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: $245,000.00
Order Duration: 2008 - 2010
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Utilize objective job description
Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination-basis:
Race:
EEOC-centric: