Serrano v. Cintas Corporation

Filing 724

OPINION AND ORDER denying (706) Motion for Protective Order in case 2:04-cv-40132-SFC-DAS; denying (556) Motion for Protective Order in case 2:06-cv-12311-SFC-DAS. Signed by District Judge Sean F Cox. Associated Cases: 2:04-cv-40132-SFC-DAS, 2:06-cv-12311-SFC-DAS (JHer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MIRNA E. SERRANO, et al., Plaintiffs, and EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. CINTAS CORPORATION, Defendant. Consolidated for Pre-Trial Proceedings With BLANCA NELLY AVALOS, et al., Plaintiffs, and EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. CINTAS CORPORATION, Defendant. _____________________________________/ OPINION & ORDER DENYING THE EEOC'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [Doc. No. 706] Case No. 06-12311 HONORABLE SEAN F. COX United States District Judge Case No. 04-40132 HONORABLE SEAN F. COX United States District Judge

1

On December 23, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed complaints as an intervening plaintiff in both the Seranno and Avalos cases, bringing causes of action against Defendant Cintas Corporation ("Cintas") under Sections 705 and 706 of Title VII to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-4, e-5. The Court held a scheduling conference in this matter on August 10, 2009, after which a scheduling order was entered by the Court [See Doc. No. 646]. Since that time, the EEOC has taken the position that this action should be tried pursuant to the proof framework announced in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977). On January 14, 2010, the EEOC filed the instant "Motion for Protective Order" [Doc. No. 706], arguing that "individual discovery is not appropriate at this stage," and seeking a protective order from the Court precluding Cintas from taking the depositions of individual plaintiffs until the second stage of proceedings under the Teamsters framework. On February 9, 2010, the Court entered its Opinion & Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Case No. 04-40132, Doc. No. 723; Case No. 06-12311, Doc. No. 571], in which the Court held that the EEOC was precluded from advancing its claims against Cintas in the instant action under the Teamsters "pattern or practice" framework, but instead must proceed under the burden-shifting framework announced in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 422 U.S. 792 (1973). Therefore, the EEOC's instant "Motion for Protective Order" [Doc. No. 706], which was entirely dependant upon this action proceeding under the

2

Teamsters framework, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. S/Sean F. Cox Sean F. Cox United States District Judge Dated: February 9, 2010 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on February 9, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/Jennifer Hernandez Case Manager

3