Case: EEOC v. BERNARD CHAUS

1:97-cv-01336 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Feb. 26, 1997

Closed Date: 1998

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In February 1997, the EEOC district office in New York, New York brought this suit against Bernard Chaus, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint in not available. After numerous stipulations resetting answer and discovery deadlines, the parties settled and a consent decree was entered in August 1998. Although the consent decree is not available, the docket states that the defendant agreed to pay the three male complainants a total of $180,000. The terms of the decree ran for one year. No fees or costs were awarded.

Summary Authors

Joel Pettit (7/7/2007)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:97-cv-01336

Docket (PACER)

E.E.O.C. v. Chaus

Aug. 27, 1998

Aug. 27, 1998

Docket

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 8, 2022, 3:09 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT filed; Summons issued and Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c); (em) (Entered: 02/27/1997)

Feb. 26, 1997

Feb. 26, 1997

Magistrate Judge Pitman is so Designated. (em) (Entered: 02/27/1997)

Feb. 26, 1997

Feb. 26, 1997

2

STIPULATION reset answer due for 7/11/97 for Bernard Chaus; deft shall not make any dispositive motions before 7/11/97 ( signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo ). (lam) (Entered: 06/20/1997)

June 19, 1997

June 19, 1997

3

STIPULATION and ORDER, set pretrial conference for 1:00 9/16/97 ( signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo ). (lam) (Entered: 07/18/1997)

July 17, 1997

July 17, 1997

4

STIPULATION, reset answer due for 9/16/97 for Bernard Chaus, and deft shall not make any dispositive motions before that date ( signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo ). (lam) (Entered: 07/18/1997)

July 17, 1997

July 17, 1997

Pre-trial conference held before Judge Sprizzo (lam) (Entered: 10/09/1997)

Sept. 16, 1997

Sept. 16, 1997

6

ORDER, set discovery due for 1/31/98 ; set pretrial conference for 10:45 2/13/98 ( signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo ); Copies mailed (lam) (Entered: 10/09/1997)

Oct. 8, 1997

Oct. 8, 1997

7

STIPULATION, reset answer due for 11/7/97 for Bernard Chaus, and that deft shall not make any dispositive motions on or before that date ( signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo ) (lam) (Entered: 10/23/1997)

Oct. 22, 1997

Oct. 22, 1997

8

STIPULATION, reset answer due for 12/8/97 for Bernard Chaus ; deft shall not make any dispositive motions on or before that date ( signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo ). (lam) (Entered: 11/13/1997)

Nov. 13, 1997

Nov. 13, 1997

9

STIPULATION, reset answer due for 1/5/98 for Bernard Chaus ( signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo ). (lam) (Entered: 12/16/1997)

Dec. 12, 1997

Dec. 12, 1997

10

STIPULATION, reset discovery due for 3/2/98 ; reset answer due for 3/2/98 for Bernard Chaus ; and that deft shall not make any dispositive motions on or before that date ( signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo ). (lam) (Entered: 02/17/1998)

Feb. 13, 1998

Feb. 13, 1998

11

Rescheduling of Pretrial Conference; reset pretrial conference for 10:45 3/27/98 ( signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo ); Copies mailed (lam) Modified on 02/18/1998 (Entered: 02/17/1998)

Feb. 17, 1998

Feb. 17, 1998

12

STIPULATION, reset discovery due for 3/27/98 ; reset answer due for 3/27/98 for Bernard Chaus ; deft shall not make any dispositive motions on or before that date (signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo ). (lam) Modified on 03/10/1998 (Entered: 03/09/1998)

March 6, 1998

March 6, 1998

13

Order of discontinuance of this action without prejudice to either party to apply on 5 days' notice for its restoration to the trial calendar of this Court, if the settlement is not consummated within 90 days; the parties shall file a Stipulation of Discontinuance and shall exchange releases within 90 days of the date hereof; if the aforementioned Stipulation of Discontinuance is not filed and/or the parties do not apply to restore the action to the trial calendar within the said 90 day period, then this Order of Discontinuance shall be deemed a dismissal of all claims, counterclaims and cross claims, with prejudice, and without costs to either party ( signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo ) (lam) Modified on 04/15/1998 (Entered: 04/13/1998)

April 10, 1998

April 10, 1998

Case closed (lam) (Entered: 04/13/1998)

April 10, 1998

April 10, 1998

14

CONSENT DECREE & JUDGMENT #98,1949: the parties agree that this court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action, that venue is proper, and that all administrative prerequisites have been met; in settlement of this dispute Chaus agree to pay $180,000.00 in backpay damages to Cosmo D'Amelio, Anthony Mascioli, and Giuseppe Assante; Chaus shall make applicable withholdings for federal, state and local income taxes and be responsible for the employer contributions; Chaus shall be responsible for all employer deductions applicable to backpay; each party shall bear its own atty fees and costs incurred in this action; this Decree shall remain in effect for 1 yr from date of entry (signed by Judge John E. Sprizzo ) (lam) (Entered: 08/28/1998)

Aug. 27, 1998

Aug. 27, 1998

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 26, 1997

Closing Date: 1998

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Bernard Chaus, Inc., Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 180000

Order Duration: 1998 - 1999

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits