Case: EEOC v. Video Only

3:06-cv-01362 | U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Filed Date: Sept. 25, 2006

Closed Date: 2011

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 25, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit against Video Only in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The EEOC complaint alleged that the defendant had engaged in harassment and retaliation based on race, national origin, and religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It sought injunctive and monetary relief.On October 25, two employees of Video Only moved to intervene. They alleged discriminati…

On September 25, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit against Video Only in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The EEOC complaint alleged that the defendant had engaged in harassment and retaliation based on race, national origin, and religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It sought injunctive and monetary relief.

On October 25, two employees of Video Only moved to intervene. They alleged discrimination and retaliation based on race, national origin and religion in violation of Title VII, and violations of 42 USC § 1981 and 15 USC § 1681n. Judge Garr King approved the intervention, but we do not have access to the order.

Over the next several months, the parties engaged in discovery.

The EEOC sought to consolidate this action with Video Only Inc (03:08-CV-00122), but the court denied this request on May 2, 2008.

On June 11, 2008, the court granted several motions for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgement for the plaintiffs on their retaliation claims, holding that Video Only was liable for the retaliation claims alleged under Title VII, ORS Ch. 659A, and § 1981. The Court also barred Video Only from raising the Faragher affirmative defense (If no tangible employment action was taken against the employee, the employer may prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence by showing: (1) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct the harassment; and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities or otherwise failed to avoid harm). The Court also concluded that Video Only violated part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act but left the issue of willfulness for the jury.

On July 23, 2008, the EEOC submitted a stipulated consent decree, which the Court approved a week later. This decree pertained to monetary and injunctive relief and had a duration of three years. For monetary relief, Video Only agreed to pay $630,000 to the plaintiffs. For the injunctive relief, the defendant agreed to refrain from retaliation and to develop anti-discrimination policies and procedures. These policies and procedures included providing anti-discrimination training for employees of Video Only Inc and ensuring that the supervisors and managers were held accountable for ensuring compliance with Title VII. In addition, the defendant agreed to report its compliance with Title VII and this decree to the EEOC.

On August 12 2008, the court dismissed the case between the defendant and two intervenor-plaintiffs.

The case docket shows no indication of non-compliance of the consent decree and the duration of the consent decree has ended. Presumably the case is closed.

Summary Authors

Daisy Manning (6/2/2008)

Sean Whetstone (7/6/2018)

Michael Beech (3/9/2019)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5260964/parties/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-video-only-inc/


Judge(s)

King, Garr M. (Oregon)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Healy, Teri L. (Washington)

Olson, Kathryn Blaire (Washington)

Stanley, John F. (Washington)

Tamayo, William Robert (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Barton, Rachelle K.H. (Oregon)

Belnavis, Clarence M. (Oregon)

Bolesky, Sharon (Oregon)

Driscoll, Sean M. (Oregon)

Hosenpud, David G. (Oregon)

Judge(s)

King, Garr M. (Oregon)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Healy, Teri L. (Washington)

Olson, Kathryn Blaire (Washington)

Stanley, John F. (Washington)

Tamayo, William Robert (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Barton, Rachelle K.H. (Oregon)

Belnavis, Clarence M. (Oregon)

Bolesky, Sharon (Oregon)

Driscoll, Sean M. (Oregon)

Hosenpud, David G. (Oregon)

Other Attorney(s)

Altschul, Andrew M. (Oregon)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:06-cv-01362

Docket [PACER]

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Video Only, Inc.

Aug. 13, 2008

Aug. 13, 2008

Docket
1

3:06-cv-01362

Complaint

EEOC v. Video Only Inc

Sept. 25, 2006

Sept. 25, 2006

Complaint
5

3:06-cv-01362

Complaint of Plaintiffs-Intervenors

EEOC v. Video Only Inc

Nov. 2, 2006

Nov. 2, 2006

Complaint
116

3:06-cv-01362

Opinion and Order

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Video Only, Inc.

2008 WL 2433841

June 11, 2008

June 11, 2008

Order/Opinion
120

3:06-cv-01362

Consent Decree

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Video Only, Inc.

July 30, 2008

July 30, 2008

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5260964/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-video-only-inc/

Last updated Aug. 8, 2022, 3:02 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
116

OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's Second Affirmative Defense (#67) is granted. Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motion for Summary Judgment on their Fair Credit Reporting Act Claim (#72) is g ranted in part. Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on their Claims of Retaliation (#74) is granted. Defendant Video Only's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#79) is granted in part and denied in part. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 06/11/08 by Judge Garr M. King. (pvh)

June 11, 2008

June 11, 2008

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Oregon

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 25, 2006

Closing Date: 2011

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers who were allegedly discriminated against in violation of Title VII.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Video Only, Inc (Janzen Beach), Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Retailer

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1981

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

State Anti-Discrimination Law

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $630,000

Order Duration: 2008 - 2011

Content of Injunction:

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Discrimination Prohibition

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Provide antidiscrimination training

Reporting

Retaliation Prohibition

Training

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Discrimination-basis:

National origin discrimination

Race discrimination

Religion discrimination

Race:

Black

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits

Private Party intervened in EEOC suit

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic