Case: United States v. North Little Rock School District

4:99-cv-00113 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Filed Date: Feb. 18, 1999

Closed Date: 2001

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On February 18, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the North Little Rock School District under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Department of Justice asked the court for injunctive and monetary relief, alleging that the defendant had violated Title VII, by discriminating and retaliating against a former employee, on the basis of gender.The plaintiff alleges that the employee was subjected to …

On February 18, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the North Little Rock School District under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Department of Justice asked the court for injunctive and monetary relief, alleging that the defendant had violated Title VII, by discriminating and retaliating against a former employee, on the basis of gender.

The plaintiff alleges that the employee was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and was retaliated against after her complaint was issued. The employee's workload was increased and supervised more closely, and she was eventually transferred to a less desirable position. The employee issued an intervenor complaint on May 5, 1999, so as to seek monetary reparations for this disparate and retaliatory treatment.

On February 2, 2001, the District Court (Judge Stephen M. Reasoner) entered a Consent Decree, agreed upon by both parties. The defendant School District was to issue and distribute a Sexual Harassment Policy with a Sexual Harrassment Complaint Procedure and Sexual Harassment Training program. An EEO Officer would also have to be appointed at the school to report to the Superintendent and Board of Education any incidents of sexual harassment or retaliation. The intervenor plaintiff was written a letter of apology and additionally awarded a monetary payment of $70,000.

We have no further information on this case.

Summary Authors

Jane Wu (11/4/2007)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/24938012/parties/united-states-v-nlr-school-district/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Lee, Bill Lann (District of Columbia)

Libman, Robert S (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Blume, W. Paul (Arkansas)

Fenton, William B. (District of Columbia)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Hamilton, Jim P (Arkansas)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

4:99-cv-00113

Docket (PACER)

April 18, 2001

April 18, 2001

Docket
1

4:99-cv-00113

Complaint

United States of America v. North Little Rock School District

Feb. 18, 1999

Feb. 18, 1999

Complaint
61

4:99-cv-00113

Consent Decree

United States of America v. North Little Rock School District

April 2, 2001

April 2, 2001

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/24938012/united-states-v-nlr-school-district/

Last updated Sept. 22, 2026, 10:02 p.m.

Docket for: United States v. NLR School District
ECF Number Date Description Link
1 Feb. 18, 1999

COMPLAINT with jury demand; summons issued and returned to counsel (jap) (Entered: 02/18/1999)

RECAP
2 Feb. 18, 1999

MEMO to file regarding service of complaint (jap) (Entered: 02/18/1999)

RECAP
3 March 8, 1999

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant NLR School District on 2/23/99 (bmt) (Entered: 03/09/1999)

RECAP
4 March 9, 1999

ANSWER by defendant (bmt) (Entered: 03/09/1999)

RECAP
5 April 15, 1999

MOTION by movant Margaret Ness to intervene as a pltf (bmt) Modified on 04/22/1999 (Entered: 04/16/1999)

RECAP
6 April 23, 1999

RESPONSE by defendant to motion to intervene as a pltf [5-1] (bmt) (Entered: 04/23/1999)

RECAP
7 April 23, 1999

BRIEF by defendant in support of response to motion to intervene [6-1] (bmt) (Entered: 04/23/1999)

RECAP
8 May 5, 1999

AMENDED MOTION by movant Margaret Ness to intervene as a pltf (bmt) (Entered: 05/06/1999)

RECAP
9 May 5, 1999

BRIEF by movant Margaret Ness in support of motion to intervene as a pltf [8-1] (bmt) (Entered: 05/06/1999)

RECAP
10 May 21, 1999

ORDER by Judge Stephen M. Reasoner granting motion to intervene as a pltf [5-1] [8-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 5/21/99 (bmt) (Entered: 05/21/1999)

RECAP
11 May 21, 1999

INTERVENOR'S complaint by intervenor plaintiff (bmt) (Entered: 05/21/1999)

RECAP
12 Oct. 5, 1999

ANSWER by defendant to complt of intervenor (bmt) (Entered: 10/05/1999)

RECAP
13 Oct. 18, 1999

MOTION by plaintiff USA for issuance of scheduling order (former empl) (Entered: 10/19/1999)

RECAP
14 Oct. 18, 1999

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in support of motion for issuance of scheduling order [13-1] (former empl) (Entered: 10/19/1999)

RECAP
15 March 23, 2000

SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC); jury trial set for 9:30 9/18/00 in Little Rock; discovery due 7/24/00; pretrial info sheet due 8/21/00 (cc: all counsel) (bmt) (Entered: 03/24/2000)

RECAP
16 April 19, 2000

ORDER by Judge Stephen M. Reasoner finding the motion for issuance of scheduling order moot [13-1] (cc: all counsel) (bmt) (Entered: 04/20/2000)

RECAP
17 July 25, 2000

MOTION by defendant to extend discovery deadline lej) (Entered: 07/25/2000)

RECAP
18 July 25, 2000

BRIEF by defendant in support of motion to extend discovery deadline [17-1] lej) (Entered: 07/25/2000)

RECAP
19 Aug. 4, 2000

OPPOSITION by plaintiff to motion to extend discovery deadline [17-1] (former empl) (Entered: 08/07/2000)

RECAP
20 Aug. 7, 2000

RESPONSE by intervenor plaintiff to motion to extend discovery deadline [17-1] (bmt) (Entered: 08/08/2000)

RECAP
21 Aug. 7, 2000

BRIEF by intervenor plaintiff in support of response to motion to extend discovery deadline [20-1] (bmt) (Entered: 08/08/2000)

RECAP
22 Aug. 11, 2000

MOTION by plaintiff to compel deft to resp to certain written discovery requests (bmt) (Entered: 08/14/2000)

RECAP
23 Aug. 11, 2000

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to compel deft to resp to certain written discovery requests [22-1] (bmt) (Entered: 08/14/2000)

RECAP
24 Aug. 11, 2000

ORDER by Judge Stephen M. Reasoner granting motion to extend discovery deadline until 8/31/00 [17-1] (cc: all counsel) (bmt) (Entered: 08/14/2000)

RECAP
25 Aug. 18, 2000

PRETRIAL INFORMATION SHEET by defendant; estimated length of trial 4 to 5 days (bmt) (Entered: 08/22/2000)

RECAP
26 Aug. 21, 2000

JOINT PRETRIAL INFORMATION SHEET by plaintiff and intervenor plaintiff; estimated length of trial 2 to 3 days (bmt) (Entered: 08/22/2000)

RECAP
27 Aug. 29, 2000

JOINT MOTION by parties for protective order (bmt) (Entered: 08/30/2000)

RECAP
28 Aug. 29, 2000

MEMORANDUM by parties in support of motion for protective order [27-1] (bmt) (Entered: 08/30/2000)

RECAP
29 Aug. 31, 2000

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Stephen M. Reasoner: granting motion for protective order regarding medical records of pltf intervenor Margaret Ness [27-1] (cc: all counsel) (bmt) (Entered: 08/31/2000)

RECAP
30 Sept. 1, 2000

RESPONSE by defendant to motion to compel deft to resp to certain written discovery requests [22-1] (bmt) (Entered: 09/01/2000)

RECAP
31 Sept. 8, 2000

MOTION by plaintiff in limine to exclude the testimony of Dolly Smith (bmt) (Entered: 09/08/2000)

RECAP
32 Sept. 8, 2000

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dolly Smith [31-1] (bmt) (Entered: 09/08/2000)

RECAP
33 Sept. 8, 2000

ORDER by Judge Stephen M. Reasoner finding the motion to compel deft to resp to certain written discovery requests moot [22-1] (cc: all counsel) (bmt) (Entered: 09/08/2000)

RECAP
34 Sept. 12, 2000

RESCHEDULING ORDER (DOC); jury trial set for 9:30 4/2/01 in Little Rock; updated pretrial info sheet due 3/5/01 (cc: all counsel) (bmt) (Entered: 09/13/2000)

RECAP
35 Sept. 13, 2000

RESPONSE by defendant to motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dolly Smith [31-1] (bmt) (Entered: 09/14/2000)

RECAP
36 Sept. 13, 2000

BRIEF by defendant in support of response to motion in limine [35-1] (bmt) (Entered: 09/14/2000)

RECAP
37 Jan. 9, 2001

ORDER by Judge Stephen M. Reasoner denying motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dolly Smith w/o prej [31-1] (cc: all counsel) (bmt) (Entered: 01/10/2001)

RECAP
38 March 5, 2001

JOINT PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE SHEET by plaintiff and intervenor plaintiff; estimated length of trial 2 to 3 days (bmt) (Entered: 03/06/2001)

RECAP
39 March 20, 2001

MOTION by defendant for summary judgment (bmt) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

RECAP
40 March 20, 2001

BRIEF by defendant in support of motion for summary judgment [39-1] (bmt) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

RECAP
41 March 20, 2001

STATEMENT OF FACTS (Local Rule 56.1) by defendant in support of motion for summary judgment [39-1] (bmt) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

RECAP
42 March 22, 2001

MOTION by plaintiff to strike deft's motion for summary judgment and for expedited consideration (bmt) (Entered: 03/23/2001)

RECAP
43 March 22, 2001

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to strike deft's motion for summary judgment [42-1] and for expedited consideration [42-2] (bmt) (Entered: 03/23/2001)

RECAP
44 March 22, 2001

RESPONSE by defendant to motion to strike motion for summary judgment [42-1] (bmt) (Entered: 03/23/2001)

RECAP
45 March 22, 2001

BRIEF by defendant in support of response to motion to strike motion for summary judgment [44-1] (bmt) (Entered: 03/23/2001)

RECAP
46 March 22, 2001

ORDER by Judge Stephen M. Reasoner denying motion for summary judgment [39-1]; finding the motion to strike deft's motion for summary judgment [42-1] and for expedited consideration moot [42-2] (cc: all counsel) (bmt) (Entered: 03/23/2001)

RECAP
47 March 23, 2001

MOTION by plaintiff in limine to exclude at trial the testimony of Dolly Smith (bmt) (Entered: 03/23/2001)

RECAP
48 March 23, 2001

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion in limine to exclude at trial the testimony of Dolly Smith [47-1] (bmt) (Entered: 03/23/2001)

RECAP
49 March 23, 2001

MOTION by plaintiff in limine to exclude certain testimony regarding the intent or state of mind of James Pearson (bmt) (Entered: 03/23/2001)

RECAP
50 March 23, 2001

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion in limine to exclude certain testimony regarding the intent or state of mind of James Pearson [49-1] (bmt) (Entered: 03/23/2001)

RECAP
51 March 23, 2001

MOTION by plaintiff in limine to exclude at trial the testimony of Fran Jackson (bmt) (Entered: 03/23/2001)

RECAP
52 March 23, 2001

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion in limine to exclude at trial the testimony of Fran Jackson [51-1] (bmt) (Entered: 03/23/2001)

RECAP
53 March 23, 2001

PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE SHEET by defendant; estimated length of trial 4 to 5 days (bmt) (Entered: 03/26/2001)

RECAP
54 March 30, 2001

RESPONSE by defendant to motion in limine to exclude at trial the testimony of Dolly Smith [47-1] (bmt) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

RECAP
55 March 30, 2001

BRIEF by defendant in support of response to motion in limine to exclude testimony of Dolly Smith [54-1] (bmt) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

RECAP
56 March 30, 2001

RESPONSE by defendant to motion in limine to exclude certain testimony regarding the intent or state of mind of James Pearson [49-1] (bmt) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

RECAP
57 March 30, 2001

BRIEF by defendant in support of response to motion in limine to exclude testimony relating to James Pearson [56-1] (bmt) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

RECAP
58 March 30, 2001

RESPONSE by defendant to motion in limine to exclude at trial the testimony of Fran Jackson [51-1] (bmt) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

RECAP
59 March 30, 2001

BRIEF by defendant in support of response to motion in limine to exclude testimony of Fran Jackson [58-1] (bmt) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

RECAP
60 March 30, 2001

ORDER by Judge Stephen M. Reasoner denying motion in limine to exclude at trial the testimony of Dolly Smith [47-1]; denying motion in limine to exclude at trial the testimony of Fran Jackson [51-1]; granting motion in to exclude certain testimony regarding the intent or state of mind of James Pearson [49-1] (cc: all counsel) (bmt) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

RECAP
61 April 2, 2001

CONSENT DECREE: by Judge Stephen M. Reasoner deft shall issue and distribute to all current School District employees the sexual harassment policy statement attached as Appendix D no later than 7 days after the date of entry of this Decree; no later than 7 days from the date of entry of this Decree, the School District shall designate a management level official as the School District's Equal Employment Opportunity Officer who shall report directly to the Superintendent; no later than 30 days after the date of entry of this Decree and upon written approval of the training program by pltf, the School District shall provide training to the EEO Officer in the law of sexual harassment and retaliation and the conduct of investigations into these issues; the deft shall provide the pltf with written confirmation of this training no later than 7 days after it is provided; any school district employee with a complt of sexual harassment or retaliation may bring such a complt directly to the EEO Officer and need not present it to his or her immediate supervisor; deft shall provide pltf with a copy of any complt of sexual harassment or retaliation w/in 5 days of the receipt of such complt by the EEO Officer; deft shall modify the performance evaluation form w/in 30 days of the date of entry of this Decree and provide a copy to pltf w/in 10 days after modification; no later than the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year, and annually thereafter, the School District shall provide training to all employees of the district, supervisory and non-supervisory, regarding sexual harassment and retaliation no later than 7 days after the entry of this Decree, deft shall offer intervenor pltf a monetary payment of $70,000; no later than 7 days after the entry date of this Decree, deft shall notify intervenor pltf of the terms of this Consent Decree by mailing to her in care of her counsel, by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of this Consent Decree; deft shall pay the monetary payment to intervenor pltf w/in 10 days of its receipt of the executed Appendix C Release and Election forms; all documents required to be delivered under this Decree to the United States shall be sent to the following address: Robert Libman, Special Litigation Counsel, Employment Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 65968, Washington, DC 20035-5968; this Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for 2 years from the date of entry of this Decree (cc: all counsel) (bmt) Modified on 04/03/2001 (Entered: 04/02/2001)

RECAP
62 April 18, 2001

COURT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of settlement hearing held before Judge Reasoner on 4/2/01 (1 volume) (bmt) (Entered: 04/18/2001)

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory:

Arkansas

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 18, 1999

Closing Date: 2001

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of a female employee

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

School District

City of Little Rock

Defendant Type(s):

Elementary/Secondary School

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Other Dockets:

Eastern District of Arkansas 4:99-cv-00113

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2001 - 2003

Issues

General/Misc.:

Retaliation

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Treatment

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Discrimination Basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

Recommended Citation