Case: EEOC v. Aramark Educational Services, Inc.

4:99-cv-00735 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Filed Date: Sept. 28, 1999

Closed Date: July 24, 2000

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In September 1999, the Little Rock Area Office of the EEOC brought this lawsuit against Aramark Educational Services, Inc., doing business as Aramark Corporation, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for violation of the Consent Decree signed in the case of EEOC and Sumner v Aramark. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendant subjected the three compl…

In September 1999, the Little Rock Area Office of the EEOC brought this lawsuit against Aramark Educational Services, Inc., doing business as Aramark Corporation, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for violation of the Consent Decree signed in the case of EEOC and Sumner v Aramark. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendant subjected the three complainants, female employees, to a sexually hostile work environment and permitted retaliation in response to their complaints about this alleged harassment. Shortly after the jury trial was scheduled, the parties settled the lawsuit through a consent decree in July 2000.

The two-year decree, containing anti-discrimination and retaliation clauses, required the defendant to: immediately report complaints of sexual harassment to its Human Resources Office, provide complainants with a neutral reference and not reference the complaint or litigation, post notice of EEO rights, provide EEO training to all employees at defendant's Harding University facility, not rehire the manager who was the subject of the complaints, and pay $150,000 to be distributed among three individuals.

Summary Authors

Justin Kanter (10/29/2007)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:99-cv-00735

Docket (PACER)

EEOC v. Aramark Educational

July 24, 2000

July 24, 2000

Docket
1

4:99-cv-00735

Complaint

EEOC v. Aramark Educational

Sept. 28, 1999

Sept. 28, 1999

Complaint
8

4:99-cv-00735

Consent Decree

EEOC v. Aramark Educational

July 24, 2000

July 24, 2000

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated July 21, 2022, 3:13 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
2

MOTION by defendant to extend time to answer (former empl) (Entered: 12/01/1999)

Nov. 30, 1999

Nov. 30, 1999

2

MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to extend time to answer [2-1] (former empl) (Entered: 12/01/1999)

Nov. 30, 1999

Nov. 30, 1999

3

ORDER by Judge G. T. Eisele granting deft's motion to extend time to answer [2-1]; answer due 30 days of the entry of this order (cc: all counsel) (former empl) (Entered: 12/09/1999)

Dec. 8, 1999

Dec. 8, 1999

4

ANSWER by defendant (former empl) (Entered: 01/10/2000)

Jan. 7, 2000

Jan. 7, 2000

5

SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC) setting jury trial for 9:15 on 8/21/00 in Little Rock, AR; discovery due 6/5/00; status report & motions due 6/20/00; pretrial info sheet due 7/21/00 (cc: all counsel) (former empl) (Entered: 01/31/2000)

Jan. 27, 2000

Jan. 27, 2000

6

MOTION by defendant to substitute attorney Carolyn B Witherspoon in place of Scott J. Lancaster, Daniel Lee Herrington (former empl) (Entered: 02/14/2000)

Feb. 11, 2000

Feb. 11, 2000

7

ORDER by Judge G. T. Eisele granting motion to substitute attorney Carolyn B Witherspoon in place of Scott J. Lancaster & Daniel Lee Herrington for deft Aramark Educational Services, Inc [6-1] (cc: all counsel) (former empl) (Entered: 02/17/2000)

Feb. 16, 2000

Feb. 16, 2000

8

CONSENT DECREE: by Judge G. T. Eisele that Court has reviewed the terms of the Consent Decree in light of the applicable laws and regulations, the statements and representations of counsel for all parties, and approves the Consent Decree; all issues and claims are settled; Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this litigation; terminating case (cc: all counsel) (bsm) Modified on 07/25/2000 (Entered: 07/25/2000)

July 24, 2000

July 24, 2000

Case Details

State / Territory: Arkansas

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 28, 1999

Closing Date: July 24, 2000

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: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

Aramark Corporation (Searcy, Arkansas), Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

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: 150000

Order Duration: 2000 - 2002

Content of Injunction:

Reporting

Neutral/Positive Reference

Provide antidiscrimination training

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Expungement of Employment Record

Discrimination Prohibition

Retaliation Prohibition

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Gender:

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits