Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
Plaintiff,
v.                                                                                                Case No. 06-C-0715
MANAGEMENT HOSPITALITY OF
RACINE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
This decision and order contains my findings of fact and conclusions of law
regarding the EEOC’s request to find Flipmeastack, Inc. and Salauddin Janmohammed in
contempt for failing to comply with the injunction entered in this case on August 31, 2010.
I.   BACKGROUND
The EEOC commenced this action on behalf of two servers employed at an IHOP
restaurant in Racine, Wisconsin  (the  “Racine IHOP”), alleging that the servers were
sexually harassed in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e,
et seq.   The EEOC alleged that three distinct but related defendants were liable for this
harassment:  (1) Management Hospitality of Racine, Inc.  (“MHR”), a dissolved Illinois
corporation  that  owned  the  Racine  IHOP;  (2)  Salauddin  Janmohammed,  the  sole
shareholder of MHR and controlling owner of twenty-one other IHOP restaurants; and (3)
Flipmeastack,  Inc.,  a  corporation  owned  and  operated  by  Victoria  Janmohammed,
Salauddin Janmohammed’s wife.   Flipmeastack provided management services to the




Racine IHOP and currently provides management services to seventeen of Salauddin
Janmohammed’s other restaurants.
The EEOC’s sexual harassment claims were tried to a jury, and the jury found that
the complaining servers were sexually harassed and that the “defendants” were liable for
this harassment.  I use scare quotes because the parties agreed that the three defendants
could be treated collectively as the “employer” of the servers for purposes of trial and that
I would determine the precise extent of each defendant’s liability after trial.   During post-
trial proceedings, the parties agreed that MHR was one of the servers’ employers but
disputed whether Flipmeastack could also be considered an employer of the servers.   I
concluded that Flipmeastack was indeed an employer of the servers because it exercised
control over the workplace at the Racine IHOP.
My conclusion that Flipmeastack was an employer of the servers at the Racine
IHOP determined the scope of the injunctive relief I awarded.   The EEOC requested an
injunction designed to prevent sexual harassment of other Flipmeastack employees.
Although the sexual harassment at issue in the present case occurred at the Racine IHOP,
which Salauddin Janmohammed had sold prior to trial and which Flipmeastack no longer
managed, the EEOC requested that the injunction apply to the remaining Janmohammed
restaurants under Flipmeastack’s management, since Flipmeastack exercised control over
the workplace at each of these restaurants.   I agreed with the EEOC and entered an
injunction  governing  Flipmeastack’s  employment  practices  at  each  Janmohammed
restaurant under its management.
One provision of the injunction required Flipmeastack to post a notice at all
restaurants informing employees of the jury’s verdict and their right to complain to both
2




Flipmeastack and the EEOC in the event they were subject to sexual harassment.
(Injunction [Docket #185] ¶ 4.)  To date, Flipmeastack has not complied with this provision,
and the EEOC has requested that Flipmeastack be held in contempt.   I held a contempt
hearing on May 20, 2011, at which Victoria Janmohammed testified that Flipmeastack
cannot post any notice at any restaurant unless Salauddin Janmohammed first approves
it.  She testified that although Salauddin Janmohammed knew that the injunction required
Flipmeastack to post the notice in all restaurants, he refused to grant it approval to do so.
Despite Salauddin Janmohammed’s refusal to allow the notices to be posted, Flipmeastack
continues to provide services to seventeen of his twenty-one restaurants.
After   hearing   Victoria   Janmohammed’s   testimony,   I   ordered   Salauddin
Janmohammed to appear at a hearing and show cause why he should not be held in
contempt as a person acting “in active concert or participation” with Flipmeastack and
Victoria Janmohammed.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C).  This hearing was held on May
26, 2011.   At the hearing, Salauddin Janmohammed confirmed that he knew that the
injunction required Flipmeastack to post the notice at all restaurants under its management
and that he was preventing Flipmeastack from doing so.
II.   DISCUSSION
I begin the discussion by noting that the present proceedings involve civil contempt
rather than criminal contempt.   Generally, civil contempt “is remedial, and for the benefit
of the complainant,” while criminal contempt “is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the
court.”   Federal Trade Comm’n v. Trudeau, 579 F.3d 754, 769 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotations omitted).  Civil contempt sanctions must either compensate the complainant for
3




losses caused by the contemptuous conduct or be designed to coerce the contemnor’s
compliance with a court order.   Id.   A coercive sanction must afford the contemnor an
opportunity to  “purge” his or her contempt, meaning that the contemnor can avoid
punishment by complying with the court order.  Id.  In the present proceedings, the EEOC
has not claimed that it has suffered any monetary losses as a result of the alleged
contemptuous conduct.   Instead, it is seeking to coerce Flipmeastack’s compliance with
the injunction’s requirement to post the required notices in all restaurants under its
management.  1
To succeed on a request for civil contempt sanctions, the EEOC must demonstrate
by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor has violated the express and
unequivocal command of a court order.  Trudeau, 579 F.3d at 763.  The command at issue
in the present case is that Flipmeastack post notices in the form attached to the injunction
in a conspicuous location at each restaurant under its management, such that the notices
can be easily seen by the employees at each restaurant.  (The notices need not be posted
in a location where customers can see them.)   Although at an earlier point in this case
Flipmeastack seemed to be taking the position that the injunction was equivocal as to
whether the notice had to be posted in each restaurant rather than at Flipmeastack’s
corporate office, at the contempt hearing both Victoria and Salauddin Janmohammed
1
Although the EEOC has not requested compensatory sanctions, it has requested
that  I  impose  a                                                                             “penalty”  for  Flipmeastack’s  past  noncompliance  with  the  notice
requirement.    However, because such a penalty would be punitive, it could only be
awarded after the conclusion of criminal contempt proceedings, which have not been held.
See generally Federal Trade Comm’n v. Trudeau, 606 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Trudeau
II”) (discussing the procedural requirements that must be followed before a court may
impose criminal contempt sanctions).
4




testified that they understood that the order required notices to be posted at all restaurants
serviced by Flipmeastack.  2In any event, Victoria and Salauddin Janmohammed did not
argue at the contempt hearing that they should not be found in contempt on the ground
that the injunction’s notice requirement is vague or ambiguous.
The next issues are whether Flipmeastack is in violation of the notice requirement
and, if so, whether Salauddin Janmohammed is guilty of contempt for acting in active
concert or participation with Flipmeastack.  The “active concert or participation” language
in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2)(C) has been interpreted to mean that third
parties can be brought within the scope of an injunction and held in contempt when they
aid and abet a party’s violation of the injunction.   See Blockowicz v. Williams, 630 F.3d
563, 567 (7th Cir. 2010); Nat’l Spiritual Assembly v. Nat’l Spiritual Assembly, 628 F.3d 837,
848 (7th Cir. 2010).  Thus, the questions are whether Flipmeastack has violated the notice
requirement and whether Salauddin Janmohammed has aided and abetted this violation.3
The facts relating to these questions are largely undisputed.   Shortly after the
injunction  was  entered,  Victoria  Janmohammed,  on  behalf  of  Flipmeastack,  asked
Salauddin Janmohammed for permission to post the notices at the seventeen restaurants
Flipmeastack was responsible for “overseeing.”  Salauddin Janmohammed refused to grant
permission, and based on this refusal Flipmeastack determined that it would be unable to
post  the  notices  at  the  restaurants.    However,  Flipmeastack  continued  to  provide
2
The court reporter has not yet prepared the transcript of the hearings, and so I
cannot provide page citations for the testimony summarized in the text.
3
I treat Salauddin Janmohammed as a third party even though he is a party to this
case because the injunction by its terms applies only to Flipmeastack.
5




management services to the restaurants, and Salauddin Janmohammed did not prohibit
Flipmeastack from doing so.
Flipmeastack contends that it should not be found guilty of contempt because it had
no  authority  to  post  the  notices  once  Salauddin  Janmohammed  refused  to  allow
Flipmeastack to post them.   However, although Flipmeastack may have lacked authority
to post the notices over Salauddin Janmohammed’s objection, it certainly had control over
whether it would continue to provide management services to the restaurants.   And as I
explained when I entered  the injunction, the notices had to be posted so long as
Janmohammed’s restaurants utilized Flipmeastack’s services.  (Post-Verdict Dec. [Docket
#184] at 32.)   Thus, to be in compliance with the injunction, Flipmeastack should have
informed Salauddin Janmohammed that if he did not grant Flipmeastack permission to post
the notices Flipmeastack would have to terminate its relationship with the restaurants.
Flipmeastack did not do so and continued overseeing the seventeen restaurants.   This
continued management of the restaurants without posting the notices was and continues
to be a violation of the injunction.   I therefore find Flipmeastack guilty of civil contempt.
For similar reasons, I find Salauddin Janmohammed guilty of civil contempt for
aiding and abetting Flipmeastack’s violation.   Salauddin Janmohammed testified that he
knew that the injunction required Flipmeastack to post the notices in any restaurant under
its management.   He also made statements during his testimony indicating that he knew
that if he did not allow Flipmeastack to post the notices he would have to “discontinue
[Victoria  Janmohammed’s]  service,”                                                             “get  rid  of  Flipmeastack”  or   “remove  [Victoria
Janmohammed] from all the restaurants.”   Yet, despite this knowledge, he continued to
allow Flipmeastack to manage the restaurants without posting the notices.  This aided and
6




abetted Flipmeastack’s violation, and therefore Salauddin Janmohammed is guilty of civil
contempt.
Having found Flipmeastack and Salauddin Janmohammed in contempt, the next
step is to fashion an appropriate coercive remedy.   At the hearing, the EEOC asked that
I impose a conditional fine against Flipmeastack and Salauddin Janmohammed, jointly and
severally, for every day that the notice is not posted in all restaurants.   I agree that a
conditional daily fine is an appropriate sanction.   In setting the amount of this fine, I
consider “the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy,
and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result
desired.”  United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 304 (1947).  I also
consider “the amount of defendant's financial resources and the consequent seriousness
of the burden to that particular defendant.”   Id.   Taking these factors into account, I
conclude that a conditional fine of $1,000 per day is appropriate.  The harm threatened by
allowing Flipmeastack to continue managing Janmohammed’s restaurants without posting
the notices is serious, in that the employees at these restaurants may be subjected to
sexual harassment and find themselves without an adequate complaint mechanism.  There
is  also  a  risk  that  Flipmeastack  will  discourage  employees  from  reporting  sexual
harassment.    A  conditional  fine  of                                                       $1,000  per  day  should  be  sufficient  to  coerce
compliance with the notice requirement without being unnecessarily burdensome.   A
method for monitoring Flipmeastack and Salauddin Janmohammed’s compliance  is
specified below.  4
4
At  the  hearing  on  May  26,  2011,  counsel  for  Flipmeastack  and  Salauddin
Janmohammed did not object to the monitoring scheme proposed by the EEOC.
7




III.   CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, I FIND Flipmeastack and Salauddin Janmohammed guilty
of civil contempt for violating and aiding and abetting the violation of Paragraph 4 of the
injunction entered on August 31, 2010.
IT IS ORDERED a copy of the notice attached to the injunction be posted in a
conspicuous location at each of the seventeen restaurants serviced by Flipmeastack by
June 2, 2011.   For every day after June 2, 2011 that the notices are not posted at all
seventeen restaurants, Flipmeastack and Salauddin Janmohammed shall, jointly and
severally, incur a fine of $1,000.
For purposes of monitoring compliance with this order, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that Flipmeastack and Salauddin Janmohammed provide the EEOC with a list identifying
the name, address and phone number of each of the seventeen restaurants serviced by
Flipmeastack.  This list shall be provided to the EEOC by June 2, 2011.  Flipmeastack shall
also provide the EEOC with sworn monthly certifications stating that the notices are posted
at all seventeen restaurants, and it shall attach to each certification dated digital photos
depicting the notices and their locations at each restaurant.   The first certification is due
on June 15, 2011, and subsequent certifications are due by the 15th of each month in
which the injunction is in effect.    Finally, the EEOC shall be allowed to conduct random
inspections of the seventeen restaurants during business hours to ensure that the notices
have been posted in accordance with the injunction and this order.   Flipmeastack and
Salauddin Janmohammed are responsible for making sure that the managers at each
8




restaurant are aware of the EEOC’s right to conduct these inspections, and the EEOC shall
ensure that its representatives carry appropriate identification.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 31st day of May, 2011.
/s_______________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge
9

Download 27434.pdf

Wisconsin Law