Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rowtown, Inc.


Court: United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Nov 21, 2005


On April 10, 2003, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) filed this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The EEOC alleged that Defendant Rowtown Inc. d/b/a The Fish Hopper Restaurant (“Defendant”) discriminated against Charging Party Masumeh Zanganeh and other similarly situated female employees. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that the women were subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and that Ms. Zanganeh was retaliated against for her complaints about the harassment. The EEOC further alleges that Ms. Zanganeh was constructively discharged due to retaliation and the Defendant’s failure to take corrective action in response to her complaint.

The First Hopper denies the EEOC’s and Ms. Zanganeh’s allegations. The First Hopper became aware of virtually all of Ms. Zanganeh’s complaints of sexual harassment after she voluntarily resigned and filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. During her tenure, The Fish Hopper was aware of only one of her complaints of sexual harassment, perpetrated by a coworker, and The Fish Hopper terminated the employment of that coworker. The Fish Hopper denies that Ms. Zanganeh ever complained to any member of management about any of the other allegations of sexual harassment made in this action. Regarding the complaints of the similarly situated females, The Fish Hopper was aware of only one complaint by on claimant and took appropriate corrective action immediately after becoming aware of the complaint. The Fish Hopper denies that any of the remaining claimants reported the alleged sexual harassment or that it has reason to know of the alleged harassment and claims that it is therefore not liable for the alleged harassment.



Defendant agrees to pay the total sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars, to be allocated as determined by the Commission to Claimants for their claims as outlined in this Decree. Within 30 (thirty) days after the date of the lodging of this Decree with the Court and it is fully executed, Defendant shall pay directly to EEOC the first of two equal installment payments, each installment payment outlined in attached Exhibit A. Exhibit A is incorporated herein by reference and will be separately filed with the Court under seal. The second installment payment shall be due on or before 90 days after the date of the lodging of this Decree. Each installment payment shall be in the form of a certified check, made payable directly to the individual Claimant and mailed directly to the EEOC in care of Linda Ordonio-Dixon at the EEOC’s San Francisco offices at 350 The Embarcadero Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94105-1260.

The defendant’s payment shall be considered timely if it is postmarked within three days after the due date. If the EEOC does not receive a payment within five days after the due date, the EEOC shall give Defendant written notice of the alleged default by certified mail, and thereafter Defendant shall have ten days within which to cure the alleged default. In the event Defendant then makes payment of the amount in default within ten days after it receives notice of the alleged default by certified mail, the payment schedule shall remain in effect. In the event, however, that Defendant fails to make any payment within the aforementioned ten days, EEOC may at its option, move the Court for entry of judgment against Defendant in the amount of the unpaid balance of the Two Hundred Thousand Dollars settlement amount, plus interest on such unpaid amount at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the default only, less all amounts previously paid by Defendant. EEOC shall give notice of any such motion for entry of judgment to Defendant and its attorneys. If the judgment is entered against Defendant on such motions, EEOC may enforce and collect the judgment.

2. The amounts above are being paid in complete compromise of all disputed issues, including the Intervener’s state law claims, arising out of the Complaint and the Amended Complaint in Intervention filed in this lawsuit, Civil Action No. C-03-01522-RMW (HRL) EEOC v. Rowtown Inc., d.b.a. The Fish Hopper Restaurant in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

twelve − 7 =