Case: EEOC v. Adams Extract Company

1:01-cv-00262 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Filed Date: May 1, 2001

Closed Date: March 28, 2005

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In May 2001, the EEOC's San Antonio office instituted this action against Adams Extract Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging discrimination and retaliation based on sex (female) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The parties did not agree to alternative dispute resolution but were able to propose a consent decree to the court in March 2002 which was subsequently approved. The decree provided monetary relief for one charging party in the amount of $32,000. It also enjoined the defendant from discriminating on the basis of sex and from retaliating against an employee for opposing such discrimination. In addition, the defendant was required to post an equal employment opportunity notice in its facilities and institute mandatory training sessions for all of its employees.

Summary Authors

Tony Friedman (7/8/2007)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/11209262/parties/eeoc-v-adams-extract-co/


Judge(s)

Nowlin, James Robertson (Texas)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

1:01-cv-00262

Docket (PACER)

EEOC v. Adams Extract Co.

Nov. 22, 2002

Nov. 22, 2002

Docket
1

1:01-cv-00262

Complaint

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Adams Extract Co.

May 1, 2001

May 1, 2001

Complaint
13

1:01-cv-00262

Consent Decree

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Adams Extract Company

March 28, 2002

March 28, 2002

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/11209262/eeoc-v-adams-extract-co/

Last updated April 8, 2025, 7:09 p.m.

Docket for: EEOC v. Adams Extract Co.
ECF Number Date Description Link
1 May 1, 2001

Complaint filed. Filing Fee: waived (Pages: 5) (mc2) (Entered: 05/02/2001)

Clearinghouse
May 1, 2001

Case assigned to Honorable James R. Nowlin (mc2) (Entered: 05/02/2001)

PACER
May 2, 2001

Court file prepared and forwarded to Judge Nowlin. (mc2) (Entered: 05/02/2001)

PACER
2 June 22, 2001

Waiver of Service by Adams Extract Co. ; Notice and Request Mailed on 6/14/01 ; Answer due on 8/13/01 for Adams Extract Co. (mc2) (Entered: 06/22/2001)

PACER
3 Aug. 13, 2001

Answer by Adams Extract Co. (mc2) (Entered: 08/14/2001)

PACER
4 Aug. 22, 2001

Joint motion by EEOC, Adams Extract Co. to extend time for submission of proposed scheduling order (mc2) (Entered: 08/23/2001)

PACER
5 Aug. 23, 2001

Order granting joint motion to extend time for submission of proposed scheduling order [4-1] until 11/12/01. (Noticed 8/23/01.) (mc2) (Entered: 08/23/2001)

PACER
6 Oct. 29, 2001

Second Joint motion by EEOC, Adams Extract Co. to extend time - to extend deadline for submission of proposed scheduling order (mc2) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

PACER
7 Oct. 30, 2001

Order denying joint motion to extend time - to extend deadline for submission of proposed scheduling order [6-1]. (Noticed 10/31/01.) (mc2) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

PACER
8 Nov. 1, 2001

Scheduling order setting Joining of parties, amending of pleadings on 3/18/02 Deadline for filing of all motions 4/30/02 Discovery cutoff 4/15/02 ; Alternate Dispute Resolution Report due by 11/15/01 (fe) (Entered: 11/02/2001)

PACER
9 Nov. 1, 2001

Joint discovery/case management plan (submitted by plaintiff and defendant). (mc2) (Entered: 11/02/2001)

PACER
10 Nov. 16, 2001

Alternate Dispute Resolution Report filed by EEOC, Adams Extract Co., Party(s) do not agree to Alternate Dispute Resolution (mc2) (Entered: 11/16/2001)

PACER
11 March 22, 2002

Order set docket call for 1:30 4/3/02 (td) (Entered: 03/22/2002)

PACER
12 March 27, 2002

Joint motion by EEOC, Adams Extract Co. to enter consent decree (mc2) (Entered: 03/27/2002)

PACER
14 March 28, 2002

Judgment for EEOC against Adams Extract Co. (Pages: 1) (see consent judgment above). (Noticed 3/29/02.) (mc2) (Entered: 03/29/2002)

PACER
March 28, 2002

Case closed (mc2) (Entered: 03/29/2002)

PACER
15 Nov. 19, 2002

Unopposed Motion by Adams Extract Co. for Brian S. Greig and Thomas A. Nesbitt to withdraw as attorney (mc2) (Entered: 11/20/2002)

PACER
16 Nov. 22, 2002

Order granting motion for Brian S. Greig and Thomas A. Nesbitt to withdraw as attorney [15-1] and substituting Sean E. Breen. (Noticed 11/22/02.) (mc2) (Entered: 11/22/2002)

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory:

Texas

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 1, 2001

Closing Date: March 28, 2005

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

Private Entity/Person

Adams Extract Company

Adams Extract Company

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Other Dockets:

Western District of Texas 1:01-cv-00262

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Monetary Relief

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Damages

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Content of Injunction:

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Discrimination Prohibition

Expungement of Employment Record

Neutral/Positive Reference

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Provide antidiscrimination training

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Retaliation Prohibition

Amount Defendant Pays: 32000

Order Duration: 2002 - 2005

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

Recommended Citation