U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sensient Dehydrated Flavors Company, et al.

Filing 69

ORDER APPROVING 65 Consent Decree, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/29/17. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

No. 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM

ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE
v.
(Doc. Nos. 64–65)
SENSIENT DEHYDRATED FLAVORS
COMPANY, SENSIENT DEHYDRATED
FLAVORS LLC, and SENSIENT
NATURAL INGREDIENTS LLC,
Defendants.

18
19

This matter is before the court on the parties’ joint motion for approval of a proposed

20

consent decree. This action arises from alleged disability discrimination under the Americans

21

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). After investigating charges of discrimination and pursuant to its

22

statutory authority, plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)

23

commenced this action on September 21, 2015. (Doc. No. 1.) Specifically, the EEOC alleged

24

that defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability, such as

25

discharging employees based on their use of leave as a reasonable accommodation, discharging

26

employees based on actual or perceived disabilities, and failing to engage in the interactive

27

process or providing reasonable accommodations for known disabilities. The EEOC sought both

28

monetary and injunctive relief. As a result of mediation and lengthy arms-length negotiations, the
1

1

parties reached a settlement on monetary and injunctive terms. The EEOC now seeks approval of

2

a proposed consent decree (see Doc. No. 64-1) reflecting the parties’ agreement.

3

“A consent decree is ‘essentially a settlement agreement subject to continued judicial

4

policing.’” United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 580 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Williams v.

5

Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 920 (6th Cir. 1983)). Thus, before approving a consent decree, a district

6

court must independently determine that the proposed agreement is “fundamentally fair, adequate,

7

and reasonable” and “conform[s] to applicable laws.” Id.; see also Arizona v. City of Tucson, 761

8

F.3d 1005, 1010–14 (9th Cir. 2014). “[T]he district court must balance several factors, including

9

but not limited to: strength of the plaintiffs’ case; risk, expense, complexity and possible duration

10

of continued litigation; relief offered in settlement; extent of discovery already completed; stage

11

of proceedings; experience and views of counsel; governmental participation; and reaction of the

12

class members.” Davis v. City & County of San Francisco, 890 F.2d 1438, 1445 (9th Cir. 1989)

13

(citing Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d

14

615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982)). Where a government agency is involved in the negotiation of the

15

proposed consent decree, there is a presumption in favor of the decree’s enforceability, and courts

16

should pay deference to the agency’s judgment. See S.E.C. v. Randolph, 736 F.2d 525, 529 (9th

17

Cir. 1984).

18

Here, the proposed consent decree provides monetary relief to claimants in a total sum of

19

$800,000.00, with $600,000.00 going to the eight known claimants in this case, and up to

20

$200,000.00 in a contingent class fund from which currently unknown potential claimants may

21

obtain relief, to be allocated among claimants at the EEOC’s discretion. (Doc. No. 64-1 § VII.)

22

The proposed consent decree sets forth a number of forward-looking injunctive measures,

23

including a prohibition on discriminatory employment practices and retaliation, and a requirement

24

that defendants engage in the interactive process with and provide reasonable accommodations to

25

qualified individuals with disabilities. (See, e.g., id. § VIII (general injunctive relief).) For

26

example, the parties agree that defendants will (1) designate an equal employment opportunity

27

monitor to ensure compliance with the decree and the ADA; (2) designate an in-house ADA

28

coordinator to track, monitor, process, and report on requests for accommodation; (3) review and,
2

1

if necessary, revise its policies and procedures regarding disability discrimination, reasonable

2

accommodation, and retaliation; and (4) provide training on employer obligations and employee

3

rights under the ADA. (See, e.g., id. § IX (specific injunctive relief).)

4

In light of the claims and defenses in this action, the court concludes that the proposed

5

consent decree provides substantial relief among claimants and defendants’ employees, and that it

6

is the product of a fair arms-length negotiation process. Accordingly, the court finds that the

7

proposed consent decree is fundamentally fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that it is not illegal,

8

a product of collusion, or against the public interest.

9
10

For the reasons stated above,
1. The parties’ motion for approval of the proposed consent decree (Doc. No. 65) is

11

granted;

12

2. The parties’ proposed consent decree (Doc. No. 64-1) is approved;

13

3. The court retains continuing jurisdiction over the consent decree in this action for the

14
15
16
17

duration of the decree (see Doc. No. 64-1 § IV.B); and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 29, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3