Case: EEOC v. MCDONALDS

1:05-cv-00204 | U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico

Filed Date: Feb. 24, 2005

Closed Date: 2009

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In February 2005, the Phoenix (along with the Washington, D.C. and Albuquerque) office of the EEOC brought this Title VII suit against McDonalds in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The complaint alleged that the defendant discriminated against the claimants by subjecting them to a hostile work environment because of sex. Specifically, the defendant subjected the claimaints to unwelcome and inappropriate physical contact and lewd and inappropriate sexual remarks. The ca…
In February 2005, the Phoenix (along with the Washington, D.C. and Albuquerque) office of the EEOC brought this Title VII suit against McDonalds in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The complaint alleged that the defendant discriminated against the claimants by subjecting them to a hostile work environment because of sex. Specifically, the defendant subjected the claimaints to unwelcome and inappropriate physical contact and lewd and inappropriate sexual remarks. The case settled by entry of a consent decree in March 2006. The three year consent decree required the defendant to refrain from discrimination and retaliation, pay the claimants $90,000 in damages, provide the claimants with neutral reference, institute and implement policies that will promote a work environment free from sex discrimination and retaliation, review and revise its policies on sex discrimination/harassment and retaliation, distribute the policy, post notice, provide sex discrimination/harassment training for all employees, managers, supervisors, and officers, and give the EEOC reports every six months on any complaints of sex discrimination or retaliation and compliance with the decree. The docket sheet doesn't show any further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2009.

Summary Authors

Lionel Joiner (7/11/2007)

Clearinghouse (6/11/2017)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12184489/parties/eeoc-v-pand-enterprises-in/

Judge(s)

Johnson, William Paul (New Mexico)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dreiband, Eric S (New Mexico)

Lee, James L (New Mexico)

Medina, Loretta F (New Mexico)

Attorney for Defendant

Anderman, Virginia (New Mexico)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

1:05-cv-00204

Docket [PACER]

EEOC v. Pand Enterprises, In

March 7, 2006

March 7, 2006

Docket
1

1:05-cv-00204

Complaint

EEOC v. Pand Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's Restaurant

Feb. 24, 2005

Feb. 24, 2005

Complaint

EEOC Press Release

EEOC v. Pand Enterprises

No Court

Feb. 24, 2005

Feb. 24, 2005

Press Release
14

1:05-cv-00204

Order [of Consent Decree]

EEOC v. Pand Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's Restaurant

March 7, 2006

March 7, 2006

Order/Opinion

EEOC Press Release

EEOC v. Pand Enterprises

No Court

March 10, 2006

March 10, 2006

Press Release

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12184489/eeoc-v-pand-enterprises-in/

Last updated Nov. 3, 2026, 10:33 p.m.

Docket for: EEOC v. Pand Enterprises, In
ECF Number Date Description Link
1 Feb. 24, 2005

COMPLAINT w/jury demand (referred to Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi) (nc) Modified on 02/28/2005 (Entered: 02/25/2005)

RECAP
Feb. 24, 2005

LETTER re: consent to proceed before a US Magistrate Judge (nc) (Entered: 02/25/2005)

PACER
Feb. 24, 2005

LETTER re: consent to proceed before a US Magistrate Judge (nc)

2 Feb. 25, 2005

NOTICE by plaintiff of refusal to consent to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge (sl) Modified on 03/03/2005 (Entered: 02/25/2005)

RECAP
3 Feb. 28, 2005

MINUTE ORDER: Case reassigned from Magistrate Judge Don J. Svet to District Judge William P. Johnson (cc: all counsel*) (sl) (Entered: 02/28/2005)

RECAP
April 13, 2005

SUMMONS issued as to defendant Pand Enterprises, In (sl) (Entered: 04/13/2005)

PACER
April 13, 2005

SUMMONS issued as to defendant Pand Enterprises, In (sl)

4 May 27, 2005

ANSWER by defendant [1-1] (dmw) (Entered: 05/31/2005)

RECAP
5 June 1, 2005

INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi Rule 16 scheduling conference set for 7/27/05 at 9:00 am; provisional discovery plan and IPTR due on 7/20/05 (cc: all counsel*) (sl) Modified on 06/06/2005 (Entered: 06/01/2005)

RECAP
6 July 12, 2005

MINUTE ORDER: by the Clerk of Court Rule 16 scheduling conference reset for 8/2/05 at 9:00 am before Magistrate Judge Richard Puglisi in Albuquerque, NM (cc: all counsel*) (sl) (Entered: 07/12/2005)

RECAP
7 July 13, 2005

CERTIFICATE of service by plaintiff of initial disclosures to counsel on 7/13/05* (sl) (Entered: 07/13/2005)

RECAP
8 July 13, 2005

CERTIFICATE of service of initial disclosures by deft to counsel on 7/13/05 (jrm) (Entered: 07/14/2005)

RECAP
9 July 25, 2005

ATTORNEYS' PROVISIONAL DISCOVERY PLAN (jm) (Entered: 07/26/2005)

RECAP
10 Aug. 2, 2005

CLERK'S MINUTES: before Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi Rule 16 scheduling conference held (jrm) (Entered: 08/02/2005)

RECAP
11 Aug. 4, 2005

INITIAL PRE-TRIAL REPORT by District Judge William P. Johnson and Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi ; Discovery set for 12/30/05 ;mtn filing ddl set for 2/16/06 ; proposed pretrial order due 5/4/06 ; pretrial conference set for 9:00 am on 6/19/06 ; jury trial set for 9:00 am on 7/5/06 ; Estimated # of Trial Days: 7-10; Chances of Settlement: Unknown (cc: all counsel) (sl) (Entered: 08/04/2005)

RECAP
12 Aug. 4, 2005

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi setting settlement conference for 12/20/05 at 9:00 am (cc: all counsel*) (sl) (Entered: 08/04/2005)

RECAP
13 Aug. 16, 2005

CERTIFICATE of service by plaintiff of first supplemental disclosure to counsel on 8/15/05 (sl) (Entered: 08/16/2005)

RECAP
14 March 7, 2006

ORDER by District Judge William P. Johnson of consent decree as described herein dismissing case (cc: all counsel) (sl) (Entered: 03/07/2006)

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory:

New Mexico

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 24, 2005

Closing Date: 2009

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

Pand Enterprises, Inc.

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Other Dockets:

District of New Mexico 1:05-cv-00204

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:

Discrimination Prohibition

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Neutral/Positive Reference

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Provide antidiscrimination training

Reporting

Retaliation Prohibition

Amount Defendant Pays: 90000

Order Duration: 2006 - 2009

Issues

General/Misc.:

Retaliation

Discrimination Area:

Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc.)

Disparate Treatment

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Discrimination Basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Male

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits

Recommended Citation