Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. East 40, Inc.

D. North Dakota

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. East 40, Inc.

DecidedJune 10, 2019

Docket1:18-cv-00260

StatusUnknown

This text of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. East 40, Inc. (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. East 40, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. North Dakota 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. East 40, Inc., (D.N.D. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA

Equal Employment Opportunity ) Commission, ) ) ORDER GRANTION MOTION TO Plaintiff, ) INTERVENE ) vs. ) ) East 40, Inc., d/b/a 40 Steak & Seafood, ) Case No. 1:18-cv-260 ) Defendant. ) ______________________________________________________________________________

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") initiated the above-entitled Title VII action as a result of Erica Davidson's discrimination charge and its subsequent finding that there was reasonable cause to believe that defendant had unlawfully discriminated against Davidson. On May 28, 2019, Davidson filed a motion to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). The EEOC does not oppose her motion. Defendant advised during a scheduling conference held on June 10, 2019, that it too does not oppose her motion. Rule 24(a)(1) provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute.” This case is brought by EEOC pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). That section specifically provides that “[t]he person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the [EEOC].” The Eighth Circuit has construed section 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—5(f)(1) to confer an unconditional right to intervene upon the charging party whose claims provides the basis for the EEOC action. EEOC v. Woodman of World Life Ins. Co., 479 F.3d 561, 569 (8th Cir. 2007) ("Title VII explicitly preserves the employee's unconditional right to vindicate her own interests by intervening in the EEOC's enforcement action."). Accordingly, Davidson's motion (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED. Davidson shall file her complaint with the court by June 14, 2019. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 10th day of June, 2019.

/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA

Equal Employment Opportunity ) Commission, ) ) ORDER GRANTION MOTION TO Plaintiff, ) INTERVENE ) vs. ) ) East 40, Inc., d/b/a 40 Steak & Seafood, ) Case No. 1:18-cv-260 ) Defendant. ) ______________________________________________________________________________

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") initiated the above-entitled Title VII action as a result of Erica Davidson's discrimination charge and its subsequent finding that there was reasonable cause to believe that defendant had unlawfully discriminated against Davidson. On May 28, 2019, Davidson filed a motion to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). The EEOC does not oppose her motion. Defendant advised during a scheduling conference held on June 10, 2019, that it too does not oppose her motion. Rule 24(a)(1) provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute.” This case is brought by EEOC pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). That section specifically provides that “[t]he person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the [EEOC].” The Eighth Circuit has construed section 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—5(f)(1) to confer an unconditional right to intervene upon the charging party whose claims provides the basis for the EEOC action. EEOC v. Woodman of World Life Ins. Co., 479 F.3d 561, 569 (8th Cir. 2007) ("Title VII explicitly preserves the employee's unconditional right to vindicate her own interests by intervening in the EEOC's enforcement action."). Accordingly, Davidson's motion (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED. Davidson shall file her complaint with the court by June 14, 2019. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 10th day of June, 2019.

/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge United States District Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. East 40, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-east-40-inc-ndd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack