Case: EEOC v. GUERRERO (d/b/a GRULLENSE RESTAURANT II)

2:04-cv-01752 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Filed Date: Aug. 25, 2004

Closed Date: 2011

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In August 2004, the San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Stockton, CA-based El Grullense Restaurant II and Rasil G, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The complaint is unavailable, but it can be gathered from the consent decree that the EEOC alleged on behalf of two female employees that the defendant engaged in sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A trial date was set for July 2006, but…
In August 2004, the San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Stockton, CA-based El Grullense Restaurant II and Rasil G, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The complaint is unavailable, but it can be gathered from the consent decree that the EEOC alleged on behalf of two female employees that the defendant engaged in sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A trial date was set for July 2006, but the case was settled by the entry of a consent decree in June 2006. The five-year consent decree awarded the two complainants $48,750.00 in damages. Additionally, the defendant was required to post and distribute its revised EEO and anti-harassment policies; implement a complaint procedure for employees; and provide anti-harassment training once yearly for all current and new employees. The decree was to last for five years. The docket sheet shows that no further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2011.

Summary Authors

Kevin Wilemon (9/28/2007)

Clearinghouse (6/7/2017)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5699634/parties/jfm-eeoc-v-guerrero/


Judge(s)

Burrell, Garland Ellis (California)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:04-cv-01752

Docket (PACER)

EEOC v. Guerrero

June 19, 2006

June 19, 2006

Docket
38

2:04-cv-01752

Consent Decree

EEOC v. Guerrero

June 19, 2006

June 19, 2006

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5699634/jfm-eeoc-v-guerrero/

Last updated Aug. 19, 2025, 3:51 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
23

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. on 12/12/05 ORDERING Discovery due by 2/27/2006. Motions due by 3/27/2006. Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/22/2006 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.(Carlos, K)

Dec. 13, 2005

Dec. 13, 2005

RECAP
29

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. on 3/10/06 ORDERING motion to amend is DENIED; application to shorten time is DENIED as moot. The case IS NOT REFERRED to VDRP. (Carlos, K)

March 10, 2006

March 10, 2006

RECAP
35

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. on 3/20/06 ORDERING Motion in limine 32 is DEEMED WITHDRAWN as it the application to shorten time for hearing on the motion. 30 (Carlos, K)

March 21, 2006

March 21, 2006

RECAP
37

ORDER continuing final pretrial conference to June 26, 2006 and ordering parties to file supplemental joint document, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. on 5/18/06. (Amaral, A)

May 18, 2006

May 18, 2006

RECAP
39

CONSENT DECREE agreed upon parties and signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. on 6/19/06. CASE CLOSED. (Carlos, K)

June 19, 2006

June 19, 2006

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 25, 2004

Closing Date: 2011

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

Ramon Guerrero (Stockton, CA), Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

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

Content of Injunction:

Expungement of Employment Record

Neutral/Positive Reference

Discrimination Prohibition

Retaliation Prohibition

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Provide antidiscrimination training

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Reporting

Amount Defendant Pays: 48750

Order Duration: 2006 - 2011

Issues

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Treatment

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Discrimination Basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits