Case: EEOC v. Sappington Garden Shop Company

4:06-cv-00815 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

Filed Date: May 26, 2006

Closed Date: 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 26, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri against Sappington Garden Shop Company on behalf of a female employee. The EEOC alleged Sappington Garden violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et. seq.) by failing to correct and prevent the sexual harassment of the employee and by firing the employee in retaliation for opposing the sexual harassment. Th…

On May 26, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri against Sappington Garden Shop Company on behalf of a female employee. The EEOC alleged Sappington Garden violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et. seq.) by failing to correct and prevent the sexual harassment of the employee and by firing the employee in retaliation for opposing the sexual harassment. The EEOC sought its costs and monetary and injunctive relief for the employee, including policy and practice reform, back pay, compensation for emotional harm, and back pay.

The employee, represented by private counsel, was permitted to intervene in the lawsuit on August 14, 2006. The employee's claims substantially mirrored the EEOC's. The employee amended her complaint on November 9, 2006, to add N.G. Heimos Greenhouse Company, Inc. on an integrated enterprise theory, which would treat the two corporations as the same employer.

The parties participated in an alternative dispute resolution process on December 13, 2006 and reached a settlement agreement. Because of the settlement, the employee voluntarily dismissed her claims against both companies with prejudice, which the Court (Judge Charles A. Shaw) approved on January 22, 2007. The terms of the agreement(s) between the employee and the two defendants are private and unknown. The EEOC, which did not bring any claims against Heimos Greenhouse, had its agreement with Sappington Garden entered by the Court as a consent decree on January 29, 2007.

The EEOC's settlement was with a two-year consent decree that included both monetary and injunctive provisions. Under the decree, the employee was paid $75,000, inclusive of attorneys' fees, while Sappington Garden agreed to train all its employees on the issue of sexual harassment, to provide all employees with its sexual harassment policy, to post an equal employment notice, and to keep records of all complaints of possible sexual harassment it received during the ensuing three years. The decree also required Sappington Garden to notify the EEOC of sexual harassment complaints it received during the decree term. The EEOC and Sappington Garden bore their own costs. No further court activity appears on the docket and the case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Kenneth Gray (7/23/2013)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5506971/parties/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-sappington-garden-shop-company/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Cooper, Ronald S. (District of Columbia)

Johnson, Robert G. (Missouri)

Attorney for Defendant

Bass, James D (Missouri)

Hoefer, Craig J (Missouri)

Horner, Chad A (Missouri)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:06-cv-00815

Docket [PACER]

Jan. 29, 2007

Jan. 29, 2007

Docket
1-1

4:06-cv-00815

Complaint

May 23, 2006

May 23, 2006

Complaint
10

4:06-cv-00815

Complaint [in Intervention]

Aug. 25, 2006

Aug. 25, 2006

Complaint
18-1

4:06-cv-00815

Amended Complaint of Intervenor Plaintiff Kapic

Nov. 9, 2006

Nov. 9, 2006

Complaint
31

4:06-cv-00815

Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice [Intervenor Plaintiff]

Jan. 22, 2007

Jan. 22, 2007

Order/Opinion
33-1

4:06-cv-00815

Consent Decree

Jan. 29, 2007

Jan. 29, 2007

Settlement Agreement

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5506971/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-sappington-garden-shop-company/

Last updated April 18, 2025, 8:50 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant Sabrina Kapic's motion to intervene is GRANTED and she is joined as a party plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall amend the caption of this case to read as fo llows" Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, plaintiff and Sabrina Kapic, intervenor plaintiff v. Sappington Garden Shop Company, defendant. No. 4:06-CV-815 CAS. The parties shall use this caption on all future pleadings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file her complaint by August 28, 2006 re: 7 MOTION to Intervene filed by Sabrina Kapic, . Signed by Judge Charles A. Shaw on 8/17/2006. (MRC, )

Aug. 17, 2006

Aug. 17, 2006

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Missouri

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 26, 2006

Closing Date: 2007

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of a female employee

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Sappington Garden Shop Company, Private Entity/Person

N.G. Heimos Greenhouse Company, Inc., Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Private Settlement Agreement

Voluntary Dismissal

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Retaliation Prohibition

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Provide antidiscrimination training

Reporting

Recordkeeping

Monitoring

Amount Defendant Pays: $75,000

Order Duration: 2007 - 2009

Issues

General/Misc.:

Retaliation

Discrimination Area:

Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff

Disparate Treatment

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Discrimination Basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits

Private Party intervened in EEOC suit