Filed Date: March 31, 2005
Closed Date: 2010
Clearinghouse coding complete
The Los Angeles district office of the EEOC brought this suit against Caesar's Entertainment, Inc., a major casino corporation, and related corporate entities in March 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The complaint alleged that kitchen employees employed by Caesar's were subjected to ongoing and extreme sexual harassment, and were retaliated against for complaints about the hostile work environment produced by this harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some of the complainants intervened in June 2005, adding various State law claims. The parties settled the case in August 2007 by entry of a consent decree. There are several published opinions: U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428 (D.Nev. 2006) (denying Defendants' Renewed Motion for Protective Order); U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, 2006 WL 1168840 (D.Nev. 2006) (granting Defendant Pinelo's Motion for Summary Judgment); and U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 2007 WL 1231776 (D.Nev. 2007) (granting Defendant Hernandez's Motion for Summary Judgment).
The consent decree included non-discrimination and non-retaliation clauses, required the expungement of complainants' employment records, and required Caesar's to provide neutral references for complainants. Caesar's was required to work with an Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant to develop its non-discrimination and non-retaliation policy, to create a training program that would educate employees about discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and to help develop and monitor the complaint and investigation process. The decree, in effect for three years, also required regular reporting to the EEOC on complaints and on the non-discrimination and non-retaliation policy, which was to be distributed to employees and posted. In case of non-compliance, Caesar's would have thirty days to remedy the problem, after which the EEOC would be entitled to ask the court to enforce the decree. Additionally, $850,000.00 is to be paid by Caesar's to individual complainants and to similarly situated employees identified by the EEOC. The settlement term was three years. The docket sheet does not show any further enforcement; the case was presumably closed in 2010.
Summary Authors
Shankar Viswanathan (5/23/2008)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6032871/parties/us-equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-caesars-entertainment-inc/
Hicks, Larry R. (Nevada)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6032871/us-equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-caesars-entertainment-inc/
Last updated Aug. 19, 2025, 1:54 a.m.
State / Territory: Nevada
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 31, 2005
Closing Date: 2010
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Harrah's Operating Company, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada), Private Entity/Person
Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., Private Entity/Person
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada), Private Entity/Person
Caesar's World, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada), Private Entity/Person
Caesar's Palace Corporation (Las Vegas), Private Entity/Person
Park Place Entertainment Corporation (Las Vegas), Private Entity/Person
Daniel Pinelo (Las Vegas), Private Entity/Person
Park Place Entertainment Corporation, Private Entity/Person
Ricardo Hernandez (Las Vegas), Private Entity/Person
Juan Gonzalez (Las Vegas), Private Entity/Person
Desert Palace, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada), Private Entity/Person
Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada), Private Entity/Person
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Expungement of Employment Record
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Amount Defendant Pays: 850000
Order Duration: 2007 - 2010
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
EEOC-centric: