Thin Zar v. Brennan
- 3:19-cv-00250
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 39
In Thin Zar v. Brennan, the court approved a settlement of sexual-harassment and retaliation claims and retained jurisdiction to enforce it.
May Thin Zar and Phyu Castillo received the settlement benefits and released covered employment-related claims. The Postal Service assumed payment, supervision restrictions, training, monitoring, and reporting obligations; Ronaldo Caluag and employees at the specified Postal Service locations were affected by the conduct and training provisions.
What happened
In May Thin Zar and Phyu Castillo v. Megan J. Brennan, the plaintiffs alleged that Ronaldo Caluag sexually harassed and assaulted them while they worked for the Postal Service, and that the Postal Service retaliated against them and failed to protect them. The defendant denied that the claims had merit.
The parties agreed to settle without an admission of fault. The Postal Service agreed to pay the plaintiffs $385,000 total, divided equally, and to pay $215,000 to their lawyers. It also agreed to prevent Caluag from supervising either plaintiff, provide harassment training, distribute instructions about staying away from the plaintiffs, and provide workplace training and updates for four years.
The court approved the settlement and retained jurisdiction for four years to enforce its terms. The agreement required the plaintiffs to file a dismissal with prejudice after that period. The judge’s name is not clearly legible in the provided opinion text.
The detailed version
- Thin Zar v. Brennan · No. 3:19-cv-00250
- Nov. 8, 2019
Background
May Thin Zar and Phyu Castillo brought employment-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They alleged sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation related to conduct by Ronaldo Caluag, whom they described as a supervisor. The complaint alleged unwanted sexual comments, touching, kissing, restraint, and other physical assaults, as well as emotional distress. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Postal Service failed to take effective action after they complained and required them to continue working in circumstances they considered unsafe.
The Postal Service’s answer denied that the claims had merit and disputed, among other things, whether Caluag was a supervisor under federal law and whether the Postal Service failed to respond appropriately. The answer asserted defenses including prompt corrective action, failure to exhaust administrative remedies for some matters, and failure to mitigate damages.
Settlement terms
The parties stipulated to a compromise and settlement covering claims and issues raised or that could have been raised in the action arising from the plaintiffs’ employment before the agreement’s execution. The Postal Service agreed to pay $385,000 in non-wage compensatory damages, split evenly between the plaintiffs, with each plaintiff receiving $192,500. It separately agreed to pay $215,000 to Legal Aid at Work in full satisfaction of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs.
The nonfinancial terms required the Postal Service to provide each plaintiff a letter stating that Caluag could never supervise her; tell the plaintiffs, upon inquiry, where Caluag was working; distribute instructions directing Caluag to stay away from the plaintiffs; and provide Caluag with four hours of individualized, in-person sexual-harassment training. For four years, the Postal Service also agreed to provide recurring harassment training to bargaining-unit employees, executive and administrative staff, and acting supervisors at the specified locations, conduct informal workplace-climate check-ins, and give the plaintiffs’ counsel implementation updates every six months.
The plaintiffs released the defendant, the Postal Service, and specified related officials, agents, employees, attorneys, insurers, successors, and assigns from claims arising from or relating to their employment, subject to exceptions in the agreement. The agreement stated that the settlement was not an admission of liability or fault. It also preserved rights that could not legally be waived, including certain administrative-agency participation, workers’ compensation claims, and suits to enforce the settlement.
Ruling and disposition
The court entered the proposed order pursuant to the parties’ stipulation on November 8, 2019. The court retained continuing jurisdiction for four years from the agreement’s effective date to enforce the settlement terms. The agreement required the plaintiffs to execute a stipulation dismissing with prejudice all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the action, with that dismissal to be filed after the period of retained jurisdiction. The provided text does not show a separate court order dismissing the action at that time.
The judge’s full name is not clearly legible in the provided opinion text; the order identifies the signer only as a United States District Judge.
Read the full 39-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.