Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chief Orchards Administrative Services, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Washington
DecidedJanuary 13, 2023
Docket1:21-cv-03125
StatusUnknown

This text of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chief Orchards Administrative Services, Inc. (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chief Orchards Administrative Services, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chief Orchards Administrative Services, Inc., (E.D. Wash. 2023).

Opinion

1 U.S. F DIL ISE TD R I IN C TT H CE O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jan 13, 2023 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT No. 1:21-cv-03125-MKD OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 6 ORDER GRANTING CONSTRUED Plaintiff, MOTION FOR STIPULATED 7 CONSENT DECREE; AND and CONSENT DECREE 8 KRISTIAN GONZALEZ, ECF No. 47 9 Intervenor-Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 CHIEF ORCHARDS 12 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.,

13 Defendant.

14 Before the Court is the Parties’ Proposed Consent Decree, ECF No. 47, 15 which the Court construes as a stipulated motion for a consent decree. The Court 16 has reviewed the stipulated motion and the record and is fully informed. The Court 17 approves the proposed consent decree. 18 BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 20 (“EEOC”) filed this lawsuit on September 28, 2021 pursuant to Title VII of the 1 Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), 2 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-166. The EEOC alleged

3 that Defendant Chief Orchards Administrative Services, Inc. (“Chief Orchards”) 4 engaged in unlawful employment practices by subjecting Kristian Gonzalez 5 (“Gonzalez”) to a hostile work environment based on her sex and causing her

6 constructive discharge, in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 7 2(a). The EEOC sought monetary and non-monetary relief. See ECF No. 1. Chief 8 Orchards answered the lawsuit on November 24, 2021 and denied violating Title 9 VII. See ECF No. 16.

10 The EEOC and Chief Orchards want to conclude fully and finally the 11 EEOC’s claims against Chief Orchards arising out of the EEOC’s Complaint. The 12 EEOC and Chief Orchards seek to enter into a Consent Decree to further the

13 objectives of equal employment opportunity in Title VII. 14 In order to fully and finally conclude the EEOC’s claims, the EEOC and 15 Chief Orchards agree that injunctive relief is appropriate. However, Chief 16 Orchards has notified the EEOC that it does not expect to be an employer within

17 the meaning of Title VII during the 2023 growing season and thereafter. 18 Therefore, Chief Orchards’ owners, Ernest Edwards and Brian Edwards, have 19 voluntarily participated in the resolution of this matter and agree to be bound by

20 1 the terms of this Consent Decree to ensure that it furthers the objectives of equal 2 employment opportunity in Title VII.

3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 It “is within the sound discretion of the [C]ourt” to approve a proposed 5 consent decree. Turtle Island Restoration Network v. U.S. Dep’t of Com., 834 F.

6 Supp. 2d 1004, 1008 (D. Haw. 2011), aff’d, 672 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 7 United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 580 (9th Cir. 1990); SEC v. Randolph, 736 8 F.2d 525, 529 (9th Cir. 1984)). The Court should enter a proposed consent decree 9 so long as it “comes within the general scope of the case made by the pleadings,

10 furthers the objectives upon which the law is based, and does not violate the statute 11 upon which the complaint was based,” Hawaii’s Thousand Friends, Life of Land, 12 Inc. v. Honolulu, 149 F.R.D. 614, 616 (D. Haw. 1993) (quoting Sierra Club v.

13 Elec. Controls Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1990)), and “the [C]ourt 14 . . . determines that ‘[the consent decree] is fair, reasonable and equitable and does 15 not violate the law or public policy.’” Turtle Island Restoration Network, 834 F. 16 Supp. 2d at 1008 (quoting Sierra Club, 909 F.2d at 1355).

17 The Court must generally refrain from “rubber stamp[ing its] approval.” 18 United States v. Montrose Chem. Corp. of Cal., 50 F.3d 741, 747 (9th Cir. 1995); 19 see also Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S.

20 501, 525 (“[A] federal court is more than a recorder of contracts from whom 1 parties can purchase injunctions; it is an organ of government constituted to make 2 judicial decisions.” (citations and quotations omitted)). Indeed, the Court “must

3 independently scrutinize [the consent decree’s] terms.” Turtle Island Restoration 4 Network, 834 F. Supp. 2d at 1009. “However, where as here, ‘a government 5 agency charged with protecting the public interest has pulled the laboring oar in

6 constructing the proposed settlement, more deference to the parties’ agreement is 7 due.’” Id. (quoting Montrose Chem. Corp., 50 F.3d at 746 (internal quotations 8 omitted)). 9 FINDINGS

10 The Court has reviewed the stipulated motion and the record and is fully 11 informed. The Court finds that the proposed consent decree comes within the 12 general scope of the case made by the pleadings. The Court also finds that the

13 consent decree furthers the objectives upon which Title VII and Title I of the Civil 14 Rights Act of 1991 are based, and the consent decree does not violate these statutes 15 or public policy. The Court further finds that the consent decree is fair, reasonable, 16 and equitable. Therefore, the Court approves the proposed consent decree.

17 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 18 1. The Parties’ Construed Motion for Stipulated Consent Decree, ECF No. 47, 19 is GRANTED.

20 2. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot. 1 3. All hearings and other deadlines are STRICKEN. 2

3 4 5

6 7 8 9

10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19

20 1 CONSENT DECREE 2 I. INTRODUCTION

3 1. Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed 4 this lawsuit on September 28, 2021 pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 5 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil

6 Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-166. The EEOC alleged that Defendant Chief 7 Orchards Administrative Services, Inc. (“Chief Orchards”) engaged in unlawful 8 employment practices by subjecting Kristian Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) to a hostile 9 work environment based on her sex (female) and causing her constructive

10 discharge, in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The 11 EEOC sought monetary and non-monetary relief. ECF No. 1. Chief Orchards 12 answered the lawsuit on November 24, 2021 and denied violating Title VII. ECF

13 No. 16. 14 2. The EEOC and Chief Orchards want to conclude fully and finally the 15 EEOC’s claims against Chief Orchards arising out of the EEOC’s Complaint. The 16 EEOC and Chief Orchards enter into this Consent Decree to further the objectives

17 of equal employment opportunity in Title VII. 18 3. In order to fully and finally conclude the EEOC’s claims, the EEOC and 19 Chief Orchards agree that injunctive relief is appropriate. However, Chief

20 Orchards has notified the EEOC that it does not expect to be an employer within 1 the meaning of Title VII during the 2023 growing season and thereafter. 2 Therefore, Chief Orchards’ owners, Ernest Edwards and Brian Edwards, have

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Marcella Cotton Mills
8 F.2d 522 (M.D. Alabama, 1925)
United States v. Montrose Chemical Corp.
50 F.3d 741 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Oregon
913 F.2d 576 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chief Orchards Administrative Services, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-chief-orchards-administrative-waed-2023.