Case: EEOC v. Lucent Technologies

2:04-cv-08168 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: Sept. 30, 2004

Closed Date: July 27, 2009

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Lucent Technologies, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2004. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California in January 2005. Because the dockets are the only available documents, the allegations of discrimination are unknown. In February 2005 the case was stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. The court ordered the case to remain s…

The San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Lucent Technologies, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2004. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California in January 2005. Because the dockets are the only available documents, the allegations of discrimination are unknown.

In February 2005 the case was stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. The court ordered the case to remain stayed in October 2007. In December 2007, the parties were ordered to submit a joint status report every ninety days until the Supreme Court issued an order on the petition for certiorari in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. The joint status report filed on June 17, 2009 reported that the holding in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen was adverse to the EEOC's position. As a result, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the case. The parties stipulated to dismissal of the case, which was ordered by Judge Maxine Chesney on July 27, 2009.

Summary Authors

Kevin Wilemon (5/23/2008)

Rachel Barr (1/4/2018)

People


Judge(s)

Chesney, Maxine M. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth (California)

Mitchell, Marcia L (California)

Peck, Jonathan T. (California)

Tamayo, William Robert (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Chomiak, Sarah N (Illinois)

Dritsas, William James (California)

Hurley, Lawrence J. (New York)

Rich, Allegra R. (Illinois)

Steinsapir, Kaye Ellen (California)

Judge(s)

Chesney, Maxine M. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth (California)

Mitchell, Marcia L (California)

Peck, Jonathan T. (California)

Tamayo, William Robert (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Chomiak, Sarah N (Illinois)

Dritsas, William James (California)

Hurley, Lawrence J. (New York)

Rich, Allegra R. (Illinois)

Steinsapir, Kaye Ellen (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

Jan. 24, 2005 Docket

Docket [After Transfer to Northern District of California; DN 05-269]

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

July 27, 2009 Docket

Resources

Title Description External URL

Judicial Independence, Employment Discrimination Studies Funded

Ann Nicholson

This brief article describes the Clearinghouse's award of $12,000 to build its collection of employment discrimination class actions brought by private plaintiffs. Nov. 1, 2008 https://law.wustl.edu/...

Under the Radar: Visibility and the Effects of Discrimination Lawsuits in Small and Large Firms

Carly Knight, Frank Dobbin, Alexandra Kalev

Research on how discrimination lawsuits affect corporate diversity has yielded mixed results. Qualitative studies highlight the limited efficacy of lawsuits in the typical workplace, finding that lit… April 1, 2022 https://cris.tau.ac.il/...

Docket

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

Case transferred in from the United States District Court Central District of California Case Number CV04−8168RGK (CTx). Original file with documents numbered 1−14, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. Filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/19/2005) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2005 (aaa, Court Staff). (Entered: 01/20/2005)

Jan. 19, 2005
2

ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 5/13/2005. Case Management Conference set for 5/20/2005 10:30 AM. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 01/19/05. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/19/2005) (Entered: 01/20/2005)

Jan. 19, 2005

CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/19/2005) (Entered: 01/20/2005)

Jan. 19, 2005

ANSWER to re 1 Complaint byLucent Technologies, Inc. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/19/2005) SEE DOCKET NUMBER 1 ATTACHMENTS. (Entered: 01/20/2005)

Jan. 19, 2005
4

Joint MOTION to Reassign Case filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 3/18/2005 09:00 AM. (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 2/9/2005) (Entered: 02/09/2005)

Feb. 9, 2005
5

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT MOTION FOR REASSIGNMENT AND FOR STAY; DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE JOINT STATUS REPORTS; VACATING HEARING. To the extent the joint motion seeks reassignment, the motion is denied, and, to the extent the joint motion seeks a stay pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hulteen, the motion is granted. The parties shall file, no later than August 12, 2005, a joint report apprising the Court of the status of the appeal, and thereafter to submit status reports at intervals of no less than six months. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 11, 2005. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/11/2005)

Feb. 11, 2005

Case Stayed (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2005) (Entered: 02/11/2005)

Feb. 11, 2005
6

STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 8/9/2005) (Entered: 08/09/2005)

Aug. 9, 2005
7

STATUS REPORT joint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 2/21/2006) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

Feb. 21, 2006
8

STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 10/16/2006) (Entered: 10/16/2006)

Oct. 16, 2006
9

MOTION for attorney Lawrence J. Hurley leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611009853.) filed by Lucent Technologies, Inc.. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2007) (Entered: 08/29/2007)

Aug. 27, 2007
10

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL − LOCAL RULE 7−12 by Lucent Technologies, Inc.. (Steinsapir, Kaye) (Filed on 8/30/2007) (Entered: 08/30/2007)

Aug. 30, 2007
11

MOTION Administrative Relief − Local Rule 7−11 re 10 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Subsitution of Counsel − Local Rule 7−12 filed by Lucent Technologies, Inc.. (Steinsapir, Kaye) (Filed on 8/30/2007) (Entered: 08/30/2007)

Aug. 30, 2007
12

STIPULATION AND ORDER re: substitution of counsel. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 8/30/2007. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2007) (Entered: 08/30/2007)

Aug. 30, 2007
13

ORDER by Judge Maxine M. Chesney granting 9 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of attorney Lawrence J. Hurley. (tl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2007) (Entered: 09/04/2007)

Sept. 4, 2007
14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Lucent Technologies, Inc. (Steinsapir, Kaye) (Filed on 9/12/2007) (Entered: 09/12/2007)

Sept. 12, 2007
15

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO COMPLY WITH ORDER OF FEBRUARY 11, 2005. The parties are directed to comply with the Order of February 11, 2005 by submitting, no later than October 17, 2007, a joint report apprising the Court of the status of the instant action. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 10, 2007. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2007) (Entered: 10/10/2007)

Oct. 10, 2007
16

STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 10/15/2007) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

Oct. 15, 2007
17

JOINT STATUS REPORT; ORDER. Upon review of the parties' joint status report, it is ordered that: 1) this case remains stayed; and 2) the parties shall file a status report no later than December 1, 2007. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 22, 2007. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2007) (Entered: 10/22/2007)

Oct. 22, 2007

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 12/1/2007. Re 17 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 10/22/2007) (Entered: 10/23/2007)

Oct. 22, 2007
19

JOINT STATUS REPORT; ORDER. The parties shall file a joint status report every ninety days until such time as the Supreme Court issues an order on the Petition for Certiorari in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 3, 2007. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2007) (Entered: 12/04/2007)

Dec. 4, 2007
20

ORDER CONDITIONALLY CLOSING CASE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 15, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2008) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

Feb. 15, 2008
21

ORDER VACATING ORDER CONDITIONALLY CLOSING CASE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK; DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 3, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2008) (Entered: 03/03/2008)

March 3, 2008
22

STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Lucent Technologies, Inc.. (Steinsapir, Kaye) (Filed on 3/4/2008) (Entered: 03/04/2008)

March 4, 2008
23

JOINT STATUS REPORT; ORDER. The parties shall file a joint status report every ninety days pending the Supreme Court's ruling on the Petition for Certiorari in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 5, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2008) (Entered: 03/05/2008)

March 5, 2008
24

STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Lucent Technologies, Inc.. (Steinsapir, Kaye) (Filed on 5/27/2008) (Entered: 05/27/2008)

May 27, 2008
25

NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Unavailability of Counsel (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 6/17/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)

June 17, 2008
26

STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 9/2/2008) (Entered: 09/02/2008)

Sept. 2, 2008
27

ORDER GRANTING JOINT REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION OF STAY. The action is stayed pending final disposition of AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. The parties shall file a joint status report no later than July 30, 2009 or thirty (30) days following the issuance of the Supreme Court's opinion in Hulteen, whichever is earlier. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 9, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2008) (Entered: 09/09/2008)

Sept. 9, 2008

Set Deadlines/Hearings: A Joint Status Report due by 7/30/2009. Re 27 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 9/9/2008) (Entered: 09/10/2008)

Sept. 9, 2008
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL−−LOCAL RULE 7−12 by Lucent Technologies, Inc.. (Dritsas, William) (Filed on 1/8/2009) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

Jan. 8, 2009
29

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 14, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2009) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

Jan. 14, 2009
30

STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 6/17/2009) (Entered: 06/17/2009)

June 17, 2009
31

ORDER APPROVING JOINT STATUS REPORT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 25, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

June 25, 2009
32

STIPULATION for Dismissal and Proposed Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)

July 23, 2009
33

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 27, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2009) (Entered: 07/27/2009)

July 27, 2009

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 30, 2004

Closing Date: July 27, 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

Lucent Technologies, Inc. (Unknown), Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits