Case: EEOC v. Nirman Enterprises Associates d/b/a Hampton Inn

8:00-cv-03055 | U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina

Filed Date: Sept. 28, 2000

Closed Date: June 21, 2001

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

EEOC's Greenville, SC office filed this lawsuit alleging discrimination based on religious belief and failure to reasonably accommodate at the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (Anderson/Greenwood) on 09/28/2000. The defendant Nirman Enterprises Associates operated a Hampton Inn in Clemson, SC. EEOC corrected the defendant's name in an amended complaint. The individual complainant did not intervene in the lawsuit.The parties settled after some discovery. A cons…

EEOC's Greenville, SC office filed this lawsuit alleging discrimination based on religious belief and failure to reasonably accommodate at the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (Anderson/Greenwood) on 09/28/2000. The defendant Nirman Enterprises Associates operated a Hampton Inn in Clemson, SC. EEOC corrected the defendant's name in an amended complaint. The individual complainant did not intervene in the lawsuit.

The parties settled after some discovery. A consent decree was entered into judgment on 06/21/2001.

The defendant agreed to pay the complainant $3,000 to settle the case. Additionally, the defendant agreed to expunge the records of the complainant and provide neutral references. The defendant was also required to provide training on religious accommodations to its manager and assistant manager. The duration of the consent decree was 30 days or 10 days after EEOC received certification that the training was held, whichever period is longer.

Summary Authors

Yin Zheng (8/12/2007)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/11184070/parties/equal-employment-v-nirman-enterprises/

Judge(s)

Herlong, Henry Michael (South Carolina)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Turnage, Edwin Lake (South Carolina)

Attorney for Defendant

Wynkoop, Steven Mark (South Carolina)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

8:00-cv-03055

Docket [PACER]

June 21, 2001

June 21, 2001

Docket
18

8:00-cv-03055

Consent Decree

June 21, 2001

June 21, 2001

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/11184070/equal-employment-v-nirman-enterprises/

Last updated March 21, 2026, 4:52 a.m.

ECF Number Date Description Link
1 Sept. 28, 2000

COMPLAINT; Scheduling order due by 1/5/01 Service due by 1/26/01 for Mukund J Desai (jsmi) (Entered: 09/28/2000)

RECAP
2 Sept. 28, 2000

SUMMONS issued for defendant Mukund J Desai (jsmi) (Entered: 09/28/2000)

RECAP
3 Sept. 28, 2000

Answers to 16B Interrogatories by plaintiff Equal Employment; jury demand (jsmi) (Entered: 09/28/2000)

RECAP
4 Oct. 25, 2000

ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Mukund J Desai (Attorney Steven Mark Wynkoop),; jury demand (jsmi) (Entered: 10/25/2000)

RECAP
5 Dec. 5, 2000

WAIVER OF SERVICE as to Mukund J Desai. Defendant's answer filed 10/25/00 (jtho) (Entered: 12/05/2000)

RECAP
6 Jan. 17, 2001

ORDER amending [1-1] complaint Plaintiff shall file its amended pleading within 10 days of this Order - by 1/31/01 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe ) (jtho) (Entered: 01/17/2001)

RECAP
7 Jan. 18, 2001

AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff Equal Employment, (Answer due 1/29/01 for Nirman Enterprises ) amending [1-1] complaint against defendant Nirman Enterprises; jury demand (jtho) (Entered: 01/18/2001)

RECAP
8 Jan. 30, 2001

ANSWER by defendant Nirman Enterprises (Attorney ) to amended complaint (jtho) (Entered: 01/30/2001)

RECAP
9 Feb. 1, 2001

Consnet ORDER extending time for EEOC until 02/10/01 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe )svd (jsmi) (Entered: 02/05/2001)

RECAP
10 Feb. 9, 2001

MOTION by plaintiff Equal Employment to compel defendant to fully and completely answer or respond (1) interrogatories 7,11,14,15; (2) requests to produce 5,6 (3) EEOC also requests that teh court order defendant to create and serve on the EEOC a privilege log related to its objections based on alleged privilege. EEOC also requests that defendant be compelled to produce legible darker copies of documents previously produced that are stamped by defendant pages 36-37, 63-64, 69-72, 73-76, and 152-56 (jtho) (Entered: 02/12/2001)

RECAP
11 Feb. 12, 2001

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Equal Employment in support of [10-1] motion to compel defendant to fully and completely answer or respond (1) interrogatories 7,11,14,15; (2) requests to produce 5,6 (3) EEOC also requests that teh court order defendant to create and serve on the EEOC a privilege log related to its objections based on alleged privilege. EEOC also requests that defendant be compelled to produce legible darker copies of documents previously produced that are stamped by defendant pages 36-37, 63-64, 69-72, 73-76, and 152-56 (jtho) (Entered: 02/12/2001)

RECAP
12 March 6, 2001

ORDER granting [10-1] motion to compel defendant to fully and completely answer or respond (1) interrogatories 7,11,14,15; (2) requests to produce 5,6 (3) EEOC also requests that teh court order defendant to create and serve on the EEOC a privilege log related to its objections based on alleged privilege. EEOC also requests that defendant be compelled to produce legible darker copies of documents previously produced that are stamped by defendant pages 36-37, 63-64, 69-72, 73-76, and 152-56 ( signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe ) (jtho) (Entered: 03/06/2001)

RECAP
13 March 30, 2001

Answers to 16B Interrogatories by defendant Nirman Enterprises (jtho) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

RECAP
14 April 4, 2001

SCHEDULING ORDER setting Joining of parties,amending of pleadings on 4/20/01 ; Plaintiff's ID of Experts set for 5/7/01 ; Defendant's ID of Experts set for 6/6/01 ; Discovery cutoff 6/25/01 ; Deadline for filing of all motions 7/10/01 ; Jury Selection deadline set for 9/5/01 ; ( signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe ) (jtho) (Entered: 04/04/2001)

RECAP
15 April 27, 2001

ORDER/NOTICE that attorneys must be available for trial during the month this case is scheduled; leave of court is required to be excused, and must be requested in writing within 7 days of this notice; that all motions pending at the time of the Bar Meeting will be heard at the Bar Meeting; SVD ( signed by Judge Henry M. Herlong Jr. ) (sfet) (Entered: 04/27/2001)

RECAP
16 May 7, 2001

SUPPLEMENTAL Answers to 16B Interrogatories by plaintiff Equal Employment (jtho) (Entered: 05/09/2001)

RECAP
17 May 14, 2001

PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL Answers to 16B Interrogatories by plaintiff Equal Employment (jtho) (Entered: 05/15/2001)

RECAP
18 June 21, 2001

CONSENT ORDER resolving all matters in controversy between the parties as set out in decree( signed by Judge Henry M. Herlong Jr. ) (jtho) (Entered: 06/21/2001)

RECAP
June 21, 2001

Case closed (jtho)

Case Details

State / Territory:

South Carolina

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 28, 2000

Closing Date: June 21, 2001

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: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Private Entity/Person

Nirman Enterprises Associates

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Other Dockets:

District of South Carolina 8:00-cv-03055

Available Documents:

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Monetary Relief

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Damages

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Expungement of Employment Record

Monitoring

Neutral/Positive Reference

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Provide antidiscrimination training

Reporting

Retaliation Prohibition

Amount Defendant Pays: 3000

Issues

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Treatment

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits

Recommended Citation